NHS Commissioning Standards

Baroness Barker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the national Standards for Better Health encompasses commissioning skills, including specialised and mental health services; and how these skills will be assessed.

Lord Warner: My Lords, Standards for Better Health, published in July 2004, contains high-level standards that cover all healthcare provided by and for English NHS bodies and cross-border special health authorities. That covers the commissioning by PCTs of specialised and mental health services. The independent Healthcare Commission published Measuring what matters in March 2005, which outlines the new system of assessing NHS bodies, taking account of Standards for Better Health. That assessment system will cover commissioning.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that primary care trusts and the Healthcare Commission acknowledge that there are deficiencies in the skills base for commissioning specialist healthcare, will the Minister give further details of how PCTs will be encouraged to develop specialist commissioning for matters such as mental health?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Healthcare Commission will be working with primary care trusts in the coming year to develop ways of measuring and assessing commissioning more effectively. The commission is also planning an improvement review into commissioning and, where relevant, it will examine how effectively services are commissioned as part of the review, which will embrace specialist commissioning. The new criteria document that the Healthcare Commission will publish shortly will refer specifically to the needs of specialist commissioning.

Lord Chan: My Lords, how many primary care trusts have mental health specialist commissioners? That will be an important issue. Of those trusts that have, are they working in a sensible way to commission mental health services in primary care for community services?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the detail of the precise staffing make-up of primary care trusts either in my brief or in my head. I will certainly write to the noble Lord and give him more information on that. The commissioning will be taking place in a context where the amount of money being provided for mental health finance has gone up substantially and where we are now spending on mental health at a higher rate than anywhere else in Europe. We have also given primary care trusts three-year budgets at an unprecedented high level, so that there are more resources and there is more time to plan the services.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Healthcare Commission be encouraging commissioners to consider the use of consultation with staff groups by mental health professionals? Does he recognise that this kind of consultation with staff groups is an effective way of making use of the scant professionals available, particularly in CAMHS—the child and adolescent mental health services arena? Does he further recognise the benefits in terms of reducing the stress of front-line staff, reducing staff absence, and improving the quality of referrals to consultants?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that those issues will come out in the review that I have already mentioned, which the Healthcare Commission will be undertaking on commissioning with primary care trusts. It is not for the Healthcare Commission to lay down in detail how people go about their daily business in the NHS.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have always been proud of the extra taxpayers' money that they have given to the health service. When does the Minister expect the results and the delivery of the health service to catch up in percentage terms with the extra money that they have granted?

Lord Warner: My Lords, they are catching up very fast indeed. We are preventing deaths from cancer at unprecedented high levels at the fastest growing rate in Europe; we are seeing improvements on coronary heart disease; and, indeed, waiting times have gone down and down under this Government. If the party opposite got into power, the results would be going in the opposite direction.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my question was on percentage terms.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have already said this on many previous occasions, but I will give the noble Lord the figures again. This Government have increased expenditure on the NHS from about the measly £30 billion or so that we inherited to something approaching £90 billion. That is an expenditure increase of about 300 per cent.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Healthcare Commission be considering the provision of mental health services in prisons and the large number of people in our prisons who ought more appropriately to be treated in another environment?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have had a number of discussions on prisons. This Government have changed the prison healthcare system so that NHS bodies are responsible for those prison services. We have invested about £40 million extra, as I recall from memory, to improve those services. The noble Lord is right that many prisoners unfortunately have mental health problems, and the improved services will help them to tackle those issues.

Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his earlier, helpful answer? Will the core standards adopted by the Healthcare Commission incorporate a benchmark on the effectiveness and competence of PCTs to commission? Will that be part of the core standards?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the core standards are high-level standards, and a number specifically embrace commissioning issues. I refer the noble Lord to core standards 22 and 23 as examples that embrace the commissioning responsibility.
	It is for the Healthcare Commission to set the detailed criteria by which performance of those standards will be assessed. It has already set out the arrangements in relation to a new rating system, which has been published, and it will shortly be publishing detailed criteria that relate to the individual core standards to show how the NHS must perform to satisfy the Healthcare Commission on particular core standards.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords—

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the standards include maternity services? What does the Minister think of the 12-pound baby that got stuck during birth and died? Was that not a good example of bad standards? People did not know the size of the baby.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House's sympathy is with the parents of that baby. I do not have the detailed clinical circumstances of that case; indeed, it would not be appropriate for me to pass judgment on those clinical issues in this House. The core standards cover all services and the requirements for all NHS bodies with those responsibilities to conform with national service frameworks; a national service framework covers maternity services.

Wild Birds

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chose words for the issuing of general licences for the killing of wild birds different from those used in the European Union directive.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the 1979 European Union directive on the conservation of wild birds does not specify a form of words to be used on general licences, but sets out the conditions under which derogations may be granted. General licences are issued under Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which implements the relevant parts of the directive.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. Despite his comments today, I think that at the time there may have been a U-turn, as some words were definitely changed. Indeed, he acknowledged that there was a clarification.
	Today is the last day that the noble Lord will be at the Dispatch Box. From these Benches, I thank him for the courteous co-operation that we have had between us over the past six years. I am very grateful to him.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Baroness Byford: But—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I want to press the Minister further on the EU directives. How did the Government make a 13-line EU cross-compliance directive on good agricultural and environmental conditions into a 700-line equivalent?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in all the years that the noble Baroness and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I have never ceased in my admiration of her ability to stretch debates and questions—in this case, we are going into areas beyond the wild birds directive and related matters. But I accept entirely that we had to issue a clarification in terms of the general licence; I do not believe that it was a U-turn. It makes it clear that people have to consider other options, rather than having had to engage in other options. That is generally regarded as a satisfactory outcome.
	Cross-compliance is the condition on which farmers now receive decoupled payment, under their simplified single farm payment system. By and large, the whole House has accepted that as a positive move. It is the condition on which billions of pounds of European taxpayers' money is now paid to farmers. For them to qualify for that, farmers need to demonstrate that they keep the land in good agricultural and environmental condition. Our cross-compliance rules are partly set in European directives—that is the first part of the cross- compliance rules to which the noble Baroness refers—but partly left to member states.
	The member states need to spell out how farmers look after water, soil, biodiversity and landscape, because farmers will continue to receive the support of the taxpayer and citizens as a whole if they meet those conditions for looking after their land. That seems a fairly minimal but important condition on which the farming industry rightly continues to receive our support.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I want to return specifically to the birds directive. I fully acknowledge the robust way in which the Minister, Ben Bradshaw, dealt with the terms of the general licence under the birds directive. However, will the noble Lord agree that if his department had listened with more care to the advice given by the various organisations expert in such matters—I mention the CLA and declare an interest as a member—this debacle and the great wave of concern that went across the countryside would never have happened? Furthermore, will he acknowledge that proper consultation must take place in future to ensure that those instances do not occur again when dealing specifically with, for example, the review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the game laws?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl makes a complete misrepresentation of what happened. The changes in the general conditions followed a thorough period of consultation with wildlife and shooting bodies, the substantive outcome of which was that sparrows and starlings were deleted from the list of pest birds. In the circumstances, everyone in the House would welcome that. The wording was agreed by not only the RSPB but the main shooting interests, to which the noble Earl normally adheres.
	It transpired that that wording could be ambiguous in that it used "demonstrate", which could suggest that you had to have engaged in using other alternatives before shooting. Actually, the general licence meant that people had to consider other forms of control. That is now widely accepted by all parties, so the clarification is good and positive. I assure the noble Earl that, on this occasion and others, there was widespread consultation.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, are those birds that deserve protection getting a better deal under the words that Defra has produced—and the 700 lines—rather than that which was left by the European Union?
	While I am on my feet, others who have been closer in their dealings with the noble Lord paid tribute to him last night, but from these Benches I, too, thank him for his services.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their kind words.
	Birds have received a great deal of support under Labour, as the noble Lord implied. The European Union helped by setting the general terms but, at various stages, the Government—and, to be fair, successive governments—have also implemented the spirit of that directive, and wildlife has rightly received the attention that it deserves in all our legislation and regulation in this field.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we all greatly admire the Minister's grasp of this complicated brief but, since he mentioned cross-compliance, do the Government favour local community involvement in the criteria for cross-compliance?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there must be national rules or, in view of the noble Duke's origins, country rules—the Scottish rules are different from the English rules— because we are talking about taxpayers' money. Accomplishing and meeting those rules could well involve local communities, as well as the landowner or occupier of the land.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further measures they propose to take to curb carbon dioxide emissions, which, according to figures issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 21 March, have risen since 1997.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the rise in carbon dioxide emissions over recent years is indeed disappointing, but not unexpected. The current review of the UK's climate change programme is looking at how existing policies to reduce greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide emissions are performing and the range of policies that might be put in place to ensure that we continue to move towards our emission reduction goals.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, over the years, I have put many searching questions to the noble Lord on energy and the environment and he has invariably dealt with them in a courteous and helpful manner.
	Regarding the Question, does the Minister agree, as I understand he does, that it is disappointing that the level of carbon emissions is going up, rather than down and, furthermore, that that is most marked in the residential sector, where the rate of emissions is up by 11 per cent compared with the base year of 1990? In the transport sector, emissions are up by eight per cent compared with that year. Does that not call for urgent action?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes it does—on the part of us all. Perhaps I may say that I very much appreciate the fact that, on this last day of my era, he has, once again, posed a searching question on climate change and energy efficiency.
	It is a real challenge. The reason the figures are slightly higher than expected or previously estimated is the higher level of coal burn in recent years, which will die down. He is also right to say that the underlying increase in transport emissions will need to be tackled in future measures by the Government, by industry, substantially by motorists, by the building industry and by householders. Those sectors are, at present, increasing their emissions at a rate that is not compatible with our long-term goals—although it is compatible with meeting our Kyoto targets. The climate change review will throw up further measures which will allow us to begin to tackle those problems.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, target or no target, this is an area where cost-benefit analysis has an important part to play? In that context, on this, sadly his last day in office, can he give an assurance that whatever measures the Government may take, they will take none where the economic costs exceed the likely benefit?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly one needs to look at cost-effectiveness in terms of carbon return—the reduction of carbon and other greenhouse gases—and examine the most effective measures. But unless we take measures right across the board in all sectors, we will not contain carbon emissions or other greenhouse gases. That means that some quite expensive measures may need to be part of the total package.
	It is also important that those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, have had some doubt about the general strategy on climate change recognise that the costs of not taking action are hugely greater than the costs, even at the extreme end of cost-effectiveness, are likely to be. The whole House will recognise that this is a major economic problem and not a purely environmental one.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge that carbon dioxide emissions from this country are only a small proportion of that which you see world-wide? There would be limited benefits to the world as a whole if we were to act without others acting as well. Countries such as the United States and China are going to increase their carbon dioxide emissions to the great detriment of the global position. What hopes does my noble friend have of being able to persuade them to understand the role that they are playing and to moderate their future expectations?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made climate change such a central issue for our presidency of the G8 and is why we held the meeting of environment and economic Ministers beyond the G8, involving China, India and other potential major emitters. It is vital that the best and most carbon-efficient technology is used by those states. The UK, under this Government, has taken a substantial international lead and we shall continue to do so after the next election.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not clear, right across the world, that countries are now recognising that environmental objectives will not be achieved unless there is a resumption of nuclear build? I would not expect the Minister to make an announcement, particularly on his last day—I have told him that we shall be sorry not to see him on the Front Bench when his colleagues are sitting along this Front Bench—but is it not clear that, whoever is in office after the election, there must be some very swift steps to equip this country to take its place among the others who are now engaged in substantial new nuclear build programmes? That is the way to deal with the global climate threat.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, although it is tempting to make new announcements on my last day, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is correct to say that I shall not do that; but we have always said that the nuclear option needs to be kept open and we need to take steps to ensure that it is kept open, both for the UK and for the world as a whole. However, in the light of the reference to cost-effectiveness made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, there may be at the moment more cost-effective ways than building major nuclear power stations.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, now that the oil price is above 50 dollars a barrel—which provides an interesting test of the role of market forces in meeting targets for CO emissions—should we be looking fairly soon for an update of the sectoral investment targets of a balanced energy policy, in order further to assist with climate change goals?
	Secondly, I recall that at the TUC 30 years ago my noble friend was someone whom everyone liked working for. Is he aware that everyone says that that has been the case wherever he has been employed since and there can be no greater accolade than that?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those last remarks, particularly since he, along with the late Lord Murray of Epping Forest, was responsible for giving me my first job in the Labour movement, which is why I am here and why I am happy to answer his question.
	We have set the general strategy in our energy White Paper, but that must be kept under serious review in the light of market developments and technological developments. We will continue to do that. The high price of oil clearly requires us to keep that under serious review. That includes, reverting to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, keeping the nuclear option under serious review.
	Yes, these changes must be kept under review, but I assure the House that the Government will continue to regard climate change targets as a vitally important part of their strategy and I hope to continue to take some serious interest in this topic from these—these, by the way—Back Benches.

Iraq

The Earl of Dundee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the introduction of a federal structure in Iraq to assist stability and the current pursuit of parliamentary democracy.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. The United Kingdom co-sponsored the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, which welcomed the commitment of the Iraqi Interim Government to work towards a federal, democratic, pluralistic and unified Iraq. However, UNSCR 1546 also made clear that the final decision on the future status of Iraq's Government will be made by the Iraqi people through the constitutional discussions culminating in a referendum of all Iraqis later this year.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and on her retirement from the Dispatch Box today, I wish her well.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, if a federal structure were to be introduced in Iraq, which safeguards may be relied upon to contain the problems which she would envisage arising?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his kind words.
	It is important that there are safeguards, both external and internal, for Iraq's future development. The external safeguards are those which we see in regular meetings of Iraq's neighbours every two or three months in order to establish the way in which they deal with the emerging government in Iraq. There are also internal safeguards in the transitional administrative law where veto powers are devolved to three or more governorates in relation to veto powers of the constitution which we hope will emerge this year.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the key to improving the integrity of Iraq lies in improved security?
	While I am on my feet, I want to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in saying how much we have enjoyed my noble friend's stint on the Front Bench. She has been a credit not only to her party and to the Government, but also the whole House has enjoyed her performance.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Graham of Edmonton: And that applause was for you, not for me!

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the key to Iraq's future and its prosperity is in it having a government who are representative of all the different groups within its community. Security must be fundamental in that. I am happy to tell your Lordships that a report I received dated 5 April contained the news that insurgent attacks were down 11 per cent last week and down 26 per cent overall since the Iraqi elections. Of course all such figures have to be viewed with great caution because one never knows what is around the corner, but I believe that they were encouraging.
	I thank my noble friend for his kind words. It has been terrific—at least, it has been mostly terrific—and I have enjoyed it hugely. I have been very proud to be a Minister in this Government and very proud to be your Lordships' Minister, too.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Opposition Front Benches—if I may speak on behalf of them—will miss her particularly forceful interventions when she disagrees with the questions we ask? I hope that we will not miss—her successor may imitate her example—the useful and regular briefings which she has given to Members of both Houses, particularly on Middle East policy, which is so sensitive.
	Will the noble Baroness reaffirm that there is a limit to how far the West can force particular forms of constitutional democracy not only on Iraq but also on the Middle East as a whole? As we encourage Middle East countries to move towards democracy, we have to ensure that they own the process and that there is not a western template in which they are expected to fit.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree strongly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I can do no better than to quote from President Talabani's inaugural speech yesterday. In a strong and forthright speech, he said that having secured freedom from the most horrific dictatorship—and I pause there, particularly for the benefit of those who do not think we should have helped in securing that freedom—no effort would be spared in pursuing the goals of the Iraqi people. He said that democracy, federalism and human rights were all; and that an end to sectarianism and racial discrimination were hugely important.
	That demonstrates that there is a Kurdish president in Iraq putting forward those points very strongly about Iraq, about his country and about its development. Each country must go at its own pace and there is no one size which fits all as regards their future. I hope that that was sufficiently forceful to have met the noble Lord's aspirations.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I personally heartily endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire? She will be very sorely missed at the Dispatch Box. I believe that I speak for the whole House in saying that that is really so and that her performance has been quite remarkable.
	On the Question, does the noble Baroness not agree that the election of a Kurdish—not Arab—president of Iraq and of one Shia and one Sunni vice-president entitle us at least to some seeds of hope about this benighted country whose affairs have so occupied the previous Parliament? Can we not build on that and, in looking forward, hope that this will bring Iraq back into the comity of nations as the highly effective and prosperous democracy we have all worked for? Will the noble Baroness agree that this is a happy note on which to end Question Time in this Parliament?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the three-man presidency which we have seen elected is quite a remarkable beginning to the next stage in Iraq's development. Like many of your Lordships, I heard the excerpts from today's Baghdad press, making the very point about this new start and stating that the triumvirate at the top will give an overall umbrella for the future of the Iraqi Government.
	I thank the noble Lord for what he said. I shall continue to hold this House in great respect and great affection.

Crossrail Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	As the House will be aware, the Crossrail Bill is a hybrid Bill. It was introduced into Parliament on 22 February, and it has cleared the Standing Committees of this House and another place. The purpose of the carry-over Motion is straightforward. It is necessary because a great deal of work in preparation for the Bill has been completed. Without the Motion, the Bill would have to start afresh after the general election and all that work would have to be done again.
	As the Bill is a hybrid Bill, I am talking about thousands of notices being sent to landowners and others in relation to this complex and significant issue. The carry-over Motion will enable whichever government are in power, if seeking to promote the Bill, to build on the stages that have already been completed, without having to begin again. I commend the Motion to the House.
	Moved, That if a Crossrail Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we agree to the carry-over Motion. A great deal of work has been done, but it has in no way reached fruition. We have some strong reservations about the Bill, particularly relating to the interference of work around Paddington and the operation of services from there and the fact that Crossrail seeks to take over so much of the track to the detriment of other train operating companies. Furthermore, we believe that there is an alternative, or better, scheme to Crossrail that will be much more fundable.
	The issues must be explored in great detail, and we have no difficulty in supporting the carry-over Motion that the Minister has moved.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I understand the rationale of the Motion and I welcome it, but does the Minister seriously believe that the wording of the Motion is secure against a challenge by the Plain English Campaign?

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer what I know he will consider to be an elementary question? How do a government carry over a Bill not from one Session to another but from one Parliament to another? How can we in this Parliament commit a Parliament of the future, whose make-up is unknown, to anything that we decide? It seems to be rather curious, but no doubt the noble Lord will have a simple answer.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I subscribe to my noble friend's support for the carry-over Motion, and I support the point that he made about the detailed work, as well as the principle, relating to the best scheme. I include in the detail, although it will not feel like detail to those affected by it, the placing of ventilation shafts and where the spoil goes—one item that in particular is causing a great deal of grief.
	In addition, we hope not only that the Bill will proceed quickly but that the next government will put their shoulder behind all attempts to ensure that funding for the scheme is put into place. The Bill in itself will be fine. Without funding and without the necessary work to establish the proper involvement of the business community, as well as government financial support, we will not have Crossrail.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, if there is an answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may I ask why the Government have chosen this Bill for a carry-over Motion and not, for example, the Charities Bill, about which the same statement could be made as was made for this Bill?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, to the last point and the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the answer is that it is a hybrid Bill, which combines private with public interests. There is provision for carry-over between Parliaments because hybrid Bills introduce elements of great complexity. It would be a pity if such Bills fell automatically through the dissolution of Parliament after an enormous amount of work had been done and a great deal of both public and private expenditure had been incurred.
	I am grateful for the general support of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with regard to the carry-over Motion, and I respect the fact that we are destined to have extremely lively debates about the Bill. If I dare to venture an estimate, I imagine that contributions from his Bench and perhaps from other parts of the House will set out to restructure the Bill in some respects. Nevertheless, undoubtedly the government arguments in favour of the Bill, whichever government present them, will also be taken seriously on all sides.
	On the question of plain English, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has stumped me. He will recognise that, particularly with a technical Motion of this kind, almost everything to do with hybridity is complex. I recall that we both enjoyed a great hybrid occasion on a Bill in the Commons in the mid-1970s. I seem to remember that it detained the Commons almost up to the grouse shooting season and revolved around the issues of hybridity and challenge. Those of us who are battle-scarred from those days are just grateful for any form of English that gets us past some difficulties, whether plain or not.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made an important point. I am grateful that she recognises the value of the carry-over Motion and the fact that we need to make progress on the Bill. She is right to say that funding is enormously significant, and a great number of points need to be resolved on that front. The project will cost more than £10 billion. There will be enormous private as well as public gains, and so it is only right that the Government should seek to give a guarantee. It is accepted that, in addition to public resources devoted to this eminently worthwhile project, there will be a need for significant private contributions. Those issues have not yet been resolved, but we are making progress. However, one thing that would certainly set us back would be if this carry-over Motion failed to be agreed in the House today.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Inquiries Bill [HL]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	[The page and line references are to Bill 70, the Bill as first printed for the Commons.]
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT 1 Leave out Clause 7.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
	The other place supported a government amendment to remove Clause 7. As noble Lords will recall from previous deliberations in your Lordships' House, the Government did not support that clause for two key reasons. First, it would cause confusion about the lines of accountability between Parliament and the executive. Section 1 of the ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers remain in office only for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. It is therefore for the Prime Minister to decide whether a specific allegation relating to ministerial misconduct under the ministerial code needs to be investigated and how any such investigation should be conducted. I remind noble Lords that that view was supported by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report in April 2003.
	Secondly, there is concern about the scope for argument about what constitutes misconduct. The debate and amendments in another place highlighted the fact that there would be pressure to apply the clause to a far greater number of inquiries than, I believe, noble Lords intended when they proposed the amendment. As I indicated in our deliberations, it will not always be clear whether misconduct is an issue but, where there is uncertainty, Ministers could be pressed to seek resolutions. I believe that that would set precedents and increase pressure to follow the procedure for a wider range of inquiries.
	We have debated the Bill in the context of the victims of events being inquired into, who might feel that the Government were ultimately to blame for what happened. Noble Lords will recall that I talked about the fact that, on a range of inquiries into events, ultimately people may believe that there is an issue for government. It may be an issue relating to funding, the recruitment or retention of individuals working on, for example, the inquiry conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, or the issue of recruitment and retention of social services staff and so on.
	Issues arose for government in many inquiries. It is possible that those who felt strongly that the Government's actions or inactions should be classed as misconduct would feel that they had been mistreated in some way if the clause were not put into action, even if we in this House had a rather narrower definition in mind, as I am sure was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, when he moved his original amendment. That would create false expectations, and—we talked a great deal about this during the passage of the Bill—could damage the vital work that inquiries can do in restoring public confidence. That is the critical part of what an inquiry should achieve.
	The Public Administration Select Committee report proposed parliamentary involvement for certain inquiries, but my honourable friend Anne Campbell—a member of that committee—made it clear in Standing Committee in another place that that recommendation was not aimed at inquiries into ministerial misconduct. The committee felt that allegations of misconduct, such as breaches of the ministerial code, should be dealt with by another route entirely.
	I pay tribute to the work of the committee. It conducted a thorough and wide-ranging investigation and produced a report of enormous value to your Lordships' House and the Government. I am sure that it will be a source of guidance and best practice for many inquiries in the future.
	Yesterday the committee chairman, my honourable friend Dr Tony Wright, spoke eloquently in another place about the value of this Bill. He also made it clear that his concerns now were not about this Bill. They were about a category of inquiries which he described as,
	"not caught by the Bill",
	inquiries which Parliament itself might want to take a greater role in carrying out. He welcomed the commitment given by the Government, in their response to the PASC report and again yesterday, to be supportive of any work that Parliament wants to do on developing its own mechanisms for inquiry. I am happy to repeat that commitment in your Lordships' House today.
	It is also important to keep in mind the amendments made in this House to increase parliamentary involvement in inquiries set up by Ministers. For example, if there were an inquiry in which it were felt helpful to reinforce the benefit of a statement to Parliament, for which Clause 6 already provides, by asking Parliament to approve formally, by resolution, the terms of the statement, Ministers could put down resolutions to that effect, without any need for that to be spelt out in this Bill. Clause 7, therefore, does not create a power that Ministers do not already have.
	I should like to remind noble Lords what my honourable friend Tony Wright said about the benefits of the Bill. He said it is to be welcomed as a strengthening of the inquiry tradition as a whole. Ultimately, the fundamental point of the Bill is not about Parliament or Ministers, but is about giving more inquiries the full statutory powers that they need to gather all the evidence and get to the truth.
	This Bill has no "bouncebackability", to quote a term from a Sky sports channel. Noble Lords will know that this is our last opportunity to consider it. During the passage of the Bill—I say this personally—I have listened very carefully to all the concerns raised in your Lordships' House and I have amended the Bill as appropriate, whether from the point of view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, or indeed other noble Lords who have raised points of concern. It would be a shame if the Bill did not reach the statute book. I shall be very clear with noble Lords: if the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, are carried today, the Bill will not reach the statute book. The Bill cannot come back.
	I believe it is a good Bill. I support what my honourable friend Tony Wright said, and I endorse the comments made that we shall seek to work with Parliament to address the concerns of the Public Administration Select Committee and to deal with those issues. I also endorse what he said, that such a matter is not for this Bill. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel that I have listened sufficiently and will, therefore, feel able to accept the Commons amendment.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Kingsland: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the issues that underlie both amendments that we have tabled today have been thoroughly debated on three previous occasions, at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Therefore, I need only indicate, briefly, to your Lordships the content of the amendments and rehearse, equally cursorily, the arguments in support of them.
	The two amendments are, in one sense, linked because both of them seek to constrain the power of the Royal Prerogative with respect to inquiries. Amendment No. 1A deals with a special category of public inquiries—inquiries which involve ministerial misdemeanours. The amendment requires Parliament to determine the terms of reference and the composition of the inquiry committee and, in that way, constrains the independence of the Prime Minister to do so.
	In circumstances where the Prime Minister is inclined to select a judge to chair a public inquiry, the second amendment, Amendment No. 2A, will require him to obtain the permission of the Lord Chief Justice. In other words, the two other arms of the constitution—Parliament with respect to ministerial demeanours and the judges with respect to a proposal that a judge should chair a committee—are both engaged, in my submission, in a constitutionally appropriate fashion.
	The Government are opposed to both of those constraints. That does not surprise me in the least. It is wholly consistent with the approach of the Government to the balance of power between the executive arm of the constitution, on the one hand, and the judicial and parliamentary arm of the constitution, on the other, ever since they came to power in 1997. It is clear that the Government wish to make the executive arm the overwhelmingly predominant arm of the constitution.
	With respect to both of the issues raised by the Commons amendments, I at least have to give the noble Baroness high marks for consistency. What the Government are seeking to do is wholly consistent with what they sought successfully to do the other day by removing the long-standing constitutional convention that the Lord Chancellor ought to be a lawyer and a Lord. Moreover, on more than one occasion I have heard from the government Benches certain straws in the wind that, in the extremely unlikely event that the Labour Party wins the next election, there may well be early initiatives to reduce, not only your Lordships' scrutiny powers, but also the delaying powers of your Lordships' House. Behind our two amendments, therefore, lie big constitutional issues.
	Turning to Amendment No. 1A, the Bill is defective in that it says absolutely nothing whatever about the establishment and operation of inquiries where ministerial demeanours are concerned. I have been brought up to believe that when a Minister has potentially acted unconstitutionally, that Minister is responsible to Parliament. I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness tell your Lordships' House that, in fact, that doctrine no longer appears to be the case. The noble Baroness took us to the text of a particular government document and quoted it, saying that Ministers remain in office only for as long as the Prime Minister allows them to do so. My understanding is that Ministers remain in office as long as Parliament permits them to do so.
	I can quite understand why the noble Baroness may have failed to observe that point. Underneath the pile of rubble that the Government have unloaded on our constitution since 1997, it is difficult to discern the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, but it is the doctrine of ministerial responsibility that is right behind our first amendment. At both Second Reading and in Committee we advanced the view that, where ministerial misconduct is concerned, the committee investigating that misconduct should, first, be established by Parliament and, secondly, be composed, either entirely or predominantly, of Members from another place and your Lordships' House.
	In between the Committee and Report stages, as the noble Baroness quite rightly indicated, the Public Administration Select Committee of another place published a report entitled Government by Inquiry. Those of us who had been advancing those views from these Benches were delighted to read that our views were wholly endorsed by that committee's report. I refer your Lordships to the concluding passages. I quoted them on Report and I make no apologies for quoting them again. The committee said:
	"We recommend that in future inquiries into the conduct and actions of government should exercise their authority through the legitimacy of Parliament in the form of a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry composed of parliamentarians and others, rather than by the exercise of the prerogative power of the Executive".
	What better endorsement could the views of the Opposition have; especially when the overwhelming membership of that committee comes from the noble Baroness's party?
	The Public Administration Select Committee appended to its report the text of an amendment that we and the Liberal Democrats jointly supported on Report. Between Report and Third Reading, as a result of discussions that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, we amended the text of that document in order to be more kindly to the Government, and voted on the text at Third Reading.
	The noble Baroness has expressed great concern about the amendment; but the fact is that as a result of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself, the provision is not mandatory on the Government, it is only directory. The word is "may", not "must". So I remain totally unconvinced that the arguments advanced against us this morning by the noble Baroness should carry any weight.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Kingsland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, despite criticisms from some sources outside Parliament, I believe that this is a good Bill and one which is worth passing. The criticisms have been based largely on misunderstandings of both the present law and practice and the effect that the Bill would have.
	The Bill could be even better. As your Lordships know, we and the Conservatives together inserted two amendments into the Bill in your Lordships' House which have been removed in the other place. One of those, which we will come to later, required the consent of, and not just a consultation with, the relevant senior judge to appoint a judge to an inquiry panel. The other amendment—the one that appeared in Clause 7, which was removed in the other place—created a special parliamentary procedure for inquiries involving the alleged misconduct of Ministers.
	The amendment removed on Report was derived from the report of the Public Administration Select Committee on inquiries which was published during the passage of the Bill. It suggested that inquiries under the Bill involving the misconduct of Ministers should be commenced by a parliamentary resolution.
	In our view, while the matter is certainly well worth considering, there were some limitations in that proposal, both in the original amendment proposed by the Public Administration Select Committee and in the later version of that amendment which appeared in Clause 7. Perhaps I should say at this point that we do not agree, and never have agreed, with the original suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that it would be appropriate for an inquiry to be made up only or mainly of parliamentarians. That would be a recipe for total failure of the system.
	I accept that if it is compulsory to use parliamentary procedure, there would in particular be real problems in deciding before an inquiry started whether it involved allegations of misconduct by a Minister, and therefore of deciding whether the appropriate course should be a parliamentary or non-parliamentary procedure in setting up the inquiry. However, under the final version the Government cannot be forced to direct an inquiry under the Bill. It is optional for them to use the parliamentary procedure. Therefore, there is in effect little reason for the Government to make use of it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I should perhaps make it clear that yesterday, during the Bill's passage in another place, representatives from Her Majesty's Opposition made it absolutely clear that their intention was that the procedure should be used in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, they moved amendments to make it compulsory.

Lord Goodhart: That is the case, my Lords, but what we are considering here is the restoration of Clause 7 to the Bill.
	In any event, in whichever form the amendment appears, the Government cannot be forced to direct an inquiry under the Bill. They could either set up an inquiry outside the Bill or have no inquiry at all. It is a fairly general view, which I share, that a better course would probably have been for the Select Committees in the House of Commons to have a power to conduct inquiries and to be prepared to do so. But that would have involved changes of procedure, in particular the employment of counsel to cross-examine witnesses, rather than having them cross-examined by members of the committee, which the chairmen of the Select Committees in the other place seem unwilling to accept. So that particular way of moving forward is not open.
	In a speech made yesterday in the House of Commons, Tony Wright, the chairman of the Public Administration Committee, recognised the existence of these problems and therefore did not seek to press his amendment. I think that that is an important consideration to take into account.
	As I indicated, while we would support in principle the idea that there should be greater parliamentary involvement, we are not convinced that the amendment which now appears in Clause 7 provides a workable solution to the problem of getting Parliament more closely involved in the inquiry procedure.
	In normal circumstances it is likely that we would have supported Clause 7 for one round of ping-pong though no further; there is, as the Minister pointed out, no time for that now. We are reluctant to vote against an amendment that we supported earlier, but I accept that it would not be appropriate now to continue to support Clause 7. It is therefore our intention not to vote in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. With that respect, I must say that he has been uncharacteristically unfair in describing the constitutional reforms carried out since 1997 as "a pile of rubble" and suggesting that they have diminished ministerial responsibility. In fact, without going into it in any detail, the Human Rights Act, indirectly the Freedom of Information Act, and the Constitutional Reform Bill have all increased the accountability of Ministers to the courts, to Parliament and to the public. So I do not accept the criticism that has been made, especially since we on these Benches have welcomed all those reforms.
	The noble Lord has indicated correctly that his amendment would restrict the Royal prerogative. I respectfully remind him that when I introduced my Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill a few months ago, I received absolutely no support whatever from the Conservative Opposition in seeking to regularise the prerogative and place it under parliamentary control.
	I, like my noble friend, am sympathetic to this amendment and to the other to which we will come. But I am convinced that this is a very well-designed Bill. I would not like to go back and be stuck with the 1921 Act, which would be the consequence if the Bill were now to be blocked on the basis of either of the amendments being pursued. For that reason I very much hope that the Bill will now go through on oiled castors.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I intervene only shortly because on the next amendment I have a little more to say. I totally support the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that Parliament should be more involved in this subject than it is currently. As the involvement is purely optional, I see absolutely no reason why it is being resisted. I am bound to say that I find the change in the attitude of the Liberal Democrats more than a little disappointing.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I begin by saying how much I admire the improvements that your Lordships have made to this timely and important Bill. I pay tribute not only to the Minister, who has listened carefully to your Lordships, but to the other Members of the House who have played such an important and careful part at each stage of our deliberations on the Bill. It is to the credit of the House that the Bill has emerged as such a good and helpful piece of legislation.
	When this amendment was debated earlier, I spoke against it. Clearly, I was not convincing. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, chided me—extremely gently and kindly. He said that I had said that Parliament should not hold the Government to account. Because I have such regard for the noble Lord, I reflected not only on what I had said but on his response. I realised that, not for the first time, I had failed to express myself adequately in your Lordships' House. I hope that this time I may do a little better.
	I have absolutely no doubt that Parliament has a key responsibility in holding the Government to account for their actions. Indeed, I venture to suggest that some of us wish that Parliament would do that more often, more robustly and to greater effect. But the machinery to do that already exists. It may need to be strengthened in certain aspects, but that is not a matter for this Bill.
	My concern about the amendment is that it is not at all central to the Bill. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill is about setting up inquiries into matters such as the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster, Alder Hey, Shipman, Bristol Royal Infirmary and, dare I say it, Victoria Climbié. Important though the issue is, it needs to be addressed elsewhere. What the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said this morning convinces me even more of that.
	I hope that there will be no prospect of this important Bill being lost today. That would be something of a tragedy. One thing on which most if not all of us agree is that we need to remove the 1921 Act and replace it with something more relevant to today's needs. I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed but, if it is, I hope that the House will vote against it.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats will abstain and not support us. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made clear his reasons for taking that view. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his remarks. It was kind of him to describe my response to what he said on Report as gentle chiding. I certainly did not intend to go beyond that. It is nice to know that, just occasionally, what one says is understood in the terms that it was meant; that is not always the case when one speaks from the Dispatch Box.
	To me—and, indeed, to the Opposition—it seems strange for a Bill to be advanced by the Government to deal with public inquiries on all matters excepting those that matter most: the conduct of Ministers responsible to Parliament.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Lord only because I am sure that he would agree that the tragedies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, are the events that matter most. I take the noble Lord's point, but I should not want us to lost sight of what the Bill is intended to do concerning such tragedies.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I certainly do not lose sight of that; but there are already mechanisms to deal with those matters, and they will continue to do so as long as the law is not changed. I believe that the manner in which Ministers are subject to inquiries should be controlled by Parliament. However, we have not even gone as far as requiring that in our amendment. We have said only that Parliament may—not "must" but "may"—establish the terms of reference and composition of those committees. In those circumstances, I remain wholly unconvinced that the Government have a legitimate argument against the amendment, and I beg to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 142.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	2 Clause 11, page 4, line 31, leave out "obtain the consent to that appointment of" and insert "first consult"
	3 Page 4, line 33, leave out "whose consent must be obtained" and insert "to be consulted"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
	The Government continue to support the amendments and to believe that it is correct that the Lord Chief Justice or a relevant colleague must be consulted before the appointment of a judge to an inquiry panel, but that they should not be given a right of veto. The formal requirement for consultation for which the clause provides is an onerous one. It requires the Minister to listen carefully to any objections that the Lord Chief Justice may have, such as on the selection of an individual judge, the arrangements under which the judge would work, the impact on judicial workload or even the desirability of using a judge at all for that particular inquiry. The clause requires the Minister to contemplate each of those considerations and to make every effort to meet them.
	The clause recognises the Government's belief that it should be for the individual judge to say "yes" or "no" to an appointment and not for the Lord Chief Justice or the Minister. The clause accordingly upholds judicial independence. There is no suggestion that either the Government or the Lord Chief Justice could order an individual judge to carry out an inquiry. So, under the amendments of another place, it remains a matter for the individual judge to decide.
	The clause does not mean that there will be a presumption that a judge will always chair an inquiry and, as we have discussed during the passage of the Bill, we envisage that many future inquiries will have non-judicial chairmen. It is also worth remembering that in practice there has always been close contact during the process of consultation and that there always will be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made that clear in December when he told the Public Administration Select Committee that,
	"In practice, there is never any difficulty over this. My own belief is that if the Lord Chancellor of the day found the Chief Justice was unhappy about a judge taking part in an inquiry, the Lord Chancellor would be hugely influenced by this and would not, I would have thought almost inevitably, pursue his request".
	It is the Government's view, however, that ultimately the Minister must be able to ensure that the final decision on whether to appoint a judge will be in the public interest. For example, we may be considering enormously serious events that create an overwhelming public interest in appointing a judge to investigate that might outweigh all other factors. In the unlikely event that a Minister pursued the appointment of a judge and the judge accepted the appointment despite the opposition of the Lord Chief Justice or the appropriate colleague, that would no doubt be in the public domain and the Minister would have to account for it.
	The amendment made by another place indicates that, although we accept that it is very important to emphasise the critical nature of the consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, the role of selecting the chairman of an inquiry must rest with the government of the day. It is they who must take responsibility and they who need to consider the seriousness of the event in order to make a decision, but the ultimate choice whether to accept such an appointment rests with the individual judge, thereby preserving judicial independence. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Kingsland: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Lord Kingsland: I have already discussed the constitutional background to this second group of amendments. Of course, I agree with the Minister that there will be many inquiries that ought to be chaired by a judge. However, it can equally be said that many inquiries are held that emphatically ought not to be chaired by a judge. Generally speaking, those are inquiries that raise predominantly political issues where a judge has to make a decision about the action of a politician in his or her ministerial role.
	It is almost impossible for a judge to walk the tightrope between, on the one hand, being too soft on the Minister and therefore attracting the vilification of the press; and, on the other hand, being too hard on the Minister and thereby attracting the criticism that an unelected individual, lacking electoral legitimacy, should not pass judgment on those who are elected. I do not need to mention any names in support of that supposition because they are obvious to all noble Lords.
	There is also a view, despite the reaction of the Government to this matter in another place, that the much-heralded doctrine of the separation of powers ought, generally speaking, to exclude judges from the political arena. After all, as a consequence of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, judges sitting in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House are soon to be removed; and future Lord Chief Justices, Masters of the Rolls and Lord Presidents will no longer sit in your Lordships' House—all because it is feared that judges will be contaminated by the political process. In my submission, that principle applies a fortiori to judges chairing inquiries that have a political flavour.
	In the course of considering the issue, the Public Administration Select Committee, to which I referred earlier in our proceedings, had occasion to visit the United States. In talking to judges there, it learnt that American judges were astonished that British judges were used to chair public inquiries. This point is made in paragraph 30 of the committee's report:
	"The legitimacy of the judicial branch ultimately depends upon a reputation of impartiality and non-partisanship. That reputation may not be borrowed by the political branches to cloak their work in the neutral colours of judicial action".
	Later in the report, at paragraph 58, the committee concludes that,
	"We agree with Lord Woolf's concerns over the current provisions in the Inquiries Bill and recommend that decisions about the appointment of judges to undertake inquiries should be taken co-equally by the Government and the Lord Chief Justice or senior Law Lord".
	Giving that responsibility to the Lord Chief Justice guarantees that judges will not be appointed, in appropriate cases, to chair committees of inquiry. That is the basis for the amendments that we have tabled today. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Kingsland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the second group of amendments concerns whether the relevant senior judge must consent or merely be consulted before a judge, under the auspices of that senior judge, is to be appointed as a member of the panel. The term "senior judge" means in the case of a judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice or at present the senior Law Lord. In the case of a judge of the courts of England and Wales, it means the Lord Chief Justice, with corresponding provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the consent required is that of the Lord President or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
	The amendment was moved by us in your Lordships' House and supported by the Conservatives. The moving force behind the amendment was the view of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that, as the person responsible for judicial deployment in the courts of England and Wales, he should have a veto over the removal of judges from their normal duties. We support and sympathise with that view. However, I also understand that the Lord Chief Justice is concerned, as are we, that the Bill should go through with or without a clause requiring the consent of the senior judge.
	As the Minister pointed out, it is unlikely that the Lord Chancellor would proceed with a request to appoint a particular judge over the objection of the relevant senior judge. It is also true that any judges approached with a view to their appointment to the panel of an inquiry would make themselves aware of the views of the relevant senior judge and would be very unlikely to accept the appointment contrary to the wishes of that senior judge. In those circumstances, it seems that in practice the amendment would add little to what will be the case. Nor do I think that it has the kind of major constitutional implications suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
	In this case, being aware of the obvious pressures of dealing with the matter at this very late stage of the Parliament, and recognising that the Bill is worthy of going on to the statute book, we again do not wish to act contrary to what we understand are the views of the Lord Chief Justice on this issue. Therefore, as we did on the previous occasion, we will abstain if a Division is called—or, at any rate, noble Lords on this Front Bench will abstain.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, this amendment of the House of Commons has a number of bizarre features. The first, of course, is that it has been twice moved—on Report and at Third Reading—by the Liberal Democrats, and now they have changed their mind. I shall deal with the reason for that change later. Secondly, as a result of the recent and narrow defeat of the proposals of the Opposition in regard to the Lord Chancellor being a Member of this House, a senior lawyer and a senior member of the Cabinet, any Tom, Dick or Harry—I suppose I should add "or David or Charlie"—could end up being the Lord Chancellor. That gives one even more reason for requiring the Lord Chief Justice to have an equal say with the new Lord Chancellor.
	The third feature, which has never yet been answered by the Government, is that the much vaunted concordat—which was looked upon, I remember, by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with a certain amount of cynicism—makes it clear that deployment is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice; on no stretch of the imagination could this be other than an exercise in deployment. A judge is to be taken out of the High Court, the Court of Appeal or your Lordships' Appellate Committee and deployed elsewhere. That is in no way different from a judge being taken out of London and being assigned to a circuit for an extra two months, or so.
	This is part of what is provided for in the concordat. It makes depressing reading to know that there has been no reply from the Government to something as obvious as the clash between the agreement on the concordat and what is now proposed, even though the point was made both on Report and at Third Reading.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Inquiries were not discussed as part of the concordat. The Lord Chief Justice made that perfectly clear in his evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, as I understand it, the concordat was not agreed at the time when the Select Committee to which reference has been made was discussing the matter; it was overlooked. That was said in answer by the Lord Chief Justice when he gave oral evidence. It was incorporated subsequently.
	Let me turn to what the Lord Chief Justice said in this regard. He stated on Report:
	"I see the issue as having two limbs: one is now an issue—for me, at any rate—of principle. I know that principles are unwieldy and dangerous steeds to mount. However, we have recently agreed the concordat, thanks to the consensus that was reached between the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and myself. It appears that what is now being resisted is inconsistent with the concordat. For good reason, the concordat, which is now reflected in the Constitutional Reform Bill, states:
	'The Lord Chief Justice will be responsible for the posting and roles of individual judges, within the framework set by the Secretary of State'.
	It seems that deployment of a judge as an inspector of an inquiry falls readily within those words.
	This view was supported by the Public Administration Committee in the other place which, as your Lordships know"—
	and this was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—
	"concluded that the appointment of a judge to a public inquiry should be a decision taken jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. It is also, I suggest, a matter of plain English. If a judge is being deployed to conduct an inquiry, that is deployment of that judge, so the concordat applies. It could be said that the concordat deals with deployment in the courts, but I would not so understand it. That I am right in taking that view is reflected in paragraph 47 of the concordat which states that the appointment of judges to committees, boards or similar bodies is the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice".—[Official Report, 7/2/05; cols. 646 and 647.]
	With great respect to the noble Baroness, I think she has overlooked the timing in this matter. The committee's report came before the Report stage of the Inquiries Bill, and that is why the omission had to be repaired. I again repeat—perhaps I will get an answer this time—what is the explanation for the suggestion that deployment, which is a function of the Lord Chief Justice, does not equally apply to taking a judge out of the judicial strength and putting him in charge of an inquiry?
	That is one puzzling matter. The next matter to which I wish to refer is that the only explanation which has been given so far by the Government is, "Ah, you need not worry about this; it is a matter for the individual judge to decide". The attitude is that the Chief Justice need not worry because, if it is known by the judge who has been approached that the Chief Justice is against it, he will automatically decline to act. That I consider to be a very superficial answer. If it will have the result that the Government suggest, why not allow the Chief Justice to signify his consent or absence of consent and make that the determining factor? What is the point of hiding behind the individual judge?
	Moreover, it is wrong to be confident that the individual judge, despite knowing the attitude of the Chief Justice, will always refuse to act. In the debate to which I have drawn attention, it was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, the Lord President of the Court of Session, that some judges looked on the approach to them as being a requirement of their serving a public duty obligation and might well take the view that in those circumstances they really ought to take part.
	However, there may be other reasons. The judge may be bored stiff with the work that he is doing, sitting, for instance, in the Old Bailey every day with an unrelenting diet of crime, or being a member of the Family Division, with nothing else but a diet of money and matters concerning children. The relief of two or three months spent doing something unusual in the public domain and—the frailty of human beings being what it is—with the spotlight of publicity on him may well mind him to say, "I hear what the Chief Justice says, but I would like to accept the offer".
	The Chief Justice is in a far better position to assess whether the appointment should be one for a judge. He has the administrative task of deciding whether he can spare someone. It could be a specialist, a commercial judge or one of the judges dealing with administrative law—again a specialist—overworked and overtaxed. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson mentioned that there is or was provision that a judge of the commercial court could, subject to the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, sit as an arbitrator. I do not believe that that has ever happened, for the simple reason that there is and was such a demand on commercial judges. It is not right, as a matter of ordinary sound sense, to take the view that the judge would be bound to decline, but, if that is the general view, it justifies giving the veto to the Lord Chief Justice.
	I come to the almost neurotic—if I may be allowed to use that word—concern that the whole Bill will be dropped. I believe that that is a bluff. There is so little substance in the amendment proposed by the other place that I cannot believe that, with the interests of the public at heart, the Government would, for something of this kind—they say that it will make no difference anyhow, because the Chief Justice's views will predominate—drop a Bill that provides for completely different architecture with regard to the courts; for the old office of Lord Chancellor to be markedly changed; and for a Supreme Court and the dissociation of the judges—the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—from this House, because they do not get quite the reaction they want from this House. We should be a great deal bolder and see what happens if we stick to what the Liberal Democrats urged us twice to do, on which the House made clear its views on two separate occasions, voting on it on Third Reading.
	I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, the House will be glad to know that I can express my views rather more succinctly than my noble and learned friend.
	I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Throughout the tenure of office of the present Government, there has been a consistent pattern of trying to weaken the independence of the judiciary. The famous ouster clause was the high watermark, but there have been other efforts. This is, in a sense, in the same category.
	I agree with my noble and learned friend that it is difficult to reconcile the duty of the Chief Justice or whoever is appropriate to concern himself with the deployment of judges with saying that all he can do about the appointment of a judge to a panel of inquiry is express his views. However, I disagree with my noble and learned friend when he suggests that judges might happily accept appointment, despite the views of the Chief Justice, because they were bored or found that their ordinary diet of work was thoroughly unsatisfying, still less because they wanted a little oxygen of publicity to keep them going. People who do that are not normally—I could almost say ever—appointed to the Bench.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Leaving that to one side, my Lords, I stress that in relation to judging, judges are totally independent of the Chief Justice or any other judge. Early in my judicial career, I wanted advice from the Chief Justice about a bail case. I went to see him, and he gave me unequivocal advice about whether bail should be granted. The circumstances of the case, when I eventually heard it, were very peculiar, and I granted bail, contrary to the Chief Justice's policy and advice. I went back to him and said, "I am terribly sorry, but I thought that on the facts of this case I had to grant bail even though it is contrary to all policy and precedent". His answer was, "Don't think about it for a moment, John. That's what you're paid for". That illustrates the independence of the judiciary on individual cases.
	The senior judiciary are members of a collegiate body. If the senior members of that body thought and said that there were good policy reasons for not accepting the appointment, I am convinced that the appointment would not be accepted. To that extent, it makes little difference, except that it is part and parcel of taking independence away from the judiciary.
	My last point does not arise directly on this amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, mentioned it. He said that there was talk on the Government side that in the next Parliament, if they are in a position to do so, they will attempt to reduce the delaying power of this House. I am sure that he is right about that.
	I wish to draw the attention of the House and perhaps a wider public to the fact that a by-product of the Hunting Act dispute was that the Court of Appeal gave judgment that the Parliament Act is not available to alter relations between the two Houses of Parliament. That is vital. I know that those concerned with hunting felt very strongly about it. Without resorting to the Parliament Act, the Government could have got the legislation through by today by putting the Bill before the Commons in this, the third Session. I am delighted that the Hunting Act was taken to the courts because it will enable them, subject to what this House in its judicial capacity may say on a further appeal, to say flatly that you cannot use the Parliament Act to get rid of the House of Lords.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, has he read the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, the President of the Court of Sessions, as reported in Hansard, at Report stage of the Inquiries Bill? He said:
	"This matter should be in the hands of the senior judge; it should not be left to the judge who is the target of the Minister's attentions. From my own experience as an inquiry chairman, I think that most judges would feel very diffident about turning down an invitation to take an appointment which was seen as being for the public good".—[Official Report, 7/2/05; col. 646.]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am very sorry to have to remind noble and learned Lords, but we are at a stage where you are allowed to speak once in a debate.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, once described somebody as a jellyfish. I do not regard the judges of this country as jellyfish, and the idea that judges would behave in the way that has been suggested by two very distinguished former Law Lords is, with great respect, not my view of Her Majesty's judges. It is inconceivable that any judge worth his or her salt would accept an invitation to serve at an inquiry of the kind contemplated by this Bill without consulting the Lord Chief Justice. No Minister would be so foolish as to invite any judge to serve on an inquiry without first ensuring that he or she had the consent of the Lord Chief Justice. In practice, a constitutional convention, if one likes, will develop under this Bill, and has already developed, whereby any Minister who wishes a judge to head an inquiry will in practice not only consult the Lord Chief Justice but obtain his consent.
	We have not changed our minds. We agree with almost everything said by those in favour of the amendment that we first fashioned. Above all, we agree with the views of the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who, as I understand it, has not changed his mind on the issue of principle. The problem, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, describes as "neurotic", is not neurotic at all. We are concerned at the moment with what a great Conservative Home Secretary, RAB Butler, described as the art of the possible. I regret that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor takes a very firm position on this matter and will not budge. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, invites us to gamble and to call what he considers to be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's bluff, we are not prepared to gamble with a very important Bill in that way.
	I remind the House that, like the Cross Benches, the Liberal Democrats are in an unusual position in this House. We and the Cross Benches effectively control the balance of power in some key issues. Without wishing to sound pompous about it, the way in which we exercise that responsibility is rather important. We do not gamble; we must be sure that if a Bill is well designed it will pass. We are in an uncomfortable position because we wholly agree with our own amendment and wish that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had changed his mind.
	The Lord Chief Justice, to whom I have spoken—I am sure that I am at liberty to say this—is very disappointed that this amendment will not be agreed to. But he is a statesman, a wise person who combines principle with pragmatism, recognises the art of the possible and has made it clear that he would not wish to block this Bill by taking an obstinate position on the issue.
	If we thought that it would weaken judicial independence if the amendment were not agreed to, we would continue with our original position. But as my noble friend Lord Goodhart and the Minister have both indicated, it will not weaken judicial independence in any way. It will make certain that a wise Minister will act as I have said. If an unwise Minister is foolish enough not to consult and get the consent of the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice and the judges will make sure that that will be made public, it will be a scandal and the Minister will be accountable to Parliament.
	For those reasons, I very much hope that the House will reject the position being taken now, even though it was our original position. There is no change of mind on our part. We deplore the fact that our original position is not acceptable to the Government, but there is a greater purpose: to get the Bill on to the statute book.

Lord Laming: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has moved an amendment with great skill and thought. It would be foolish to discount the points that he has made. As, yet again, the only non-lawyer to address these issues—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Oh!

Lord Laming: Sorry, my Lords, apart from the Minister, who is in a central position—I took that as granted. I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me if I say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that members of the judiciary should take seriously the thoughts of the American Bar Association about judges getting too closely involved in matters that are overtly party political. That is a serious issue.
	It was because of my concern, for what it is worth, about the independence of the judiciary, and in particular the position of the Lord Chief Justice, that I supported the earlier Bill that went through your Lordships' House. It strengthens considerably the independence of the judiciary and the position of the Lord Chief Justice. But history shows that Lord Chief Justices are made of sterner stuff than we sometimes seem to give them credit. Nobody becomes a Lord Chief Justice unless he—and, I hope, some time she—has learnt to operate within the system tenaciously and robustly, and to have the dexterity to turn a problem into an opportunity. The position of the Lord Chief Justice in the Bill as it left the Commons, where he must be consulted about these matters, strikes the right note.
	I have no doubt that, recognising that both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have common cause on many of these issues about the effectiveness and resources of the courts, the Lord Chief Justice will find himself or herself in a strong position in negotiating with the Lord Chancellor on such matters in the future. I also agree with those who say—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in particular—that the Lord Chief Justice is likely to have such a standing with fellow judges that a quiet word will have considerable effect.
	I do not agree that there is a great attraction in chairing an inquiry because of the opportunity that it gives for personal publicity. Indeed, anybody who felt that that was an attractive proposition has obviously not experienced the glare of personal publicity. I believe that, having myself had the benefit of a quiet and sound word in the ear—and sometimes, even in my humble position, having offered a quiet and sound word in the ear—I feel sure that these matters can be dealt with properly. I believe that the Bill, as it has left the Commons, strikes the right note and I hope that this amendment will either not be pressed, or, if it is, will be defeated.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded your Lordships' House that it had originally been advanced by the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was aware of that. I did not mention it in my opening speech because I did not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, by reminding him that that was the case. We have marched arm-in-arm on many issues in your Lordships' House in the past few years; and I understand that, sometimes, political factors intervene which mean that, at a late stage, political parties change their positions. The trouble is, however, that the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was so convincing that I have now acquired the zeal of the convert. I now feel more strongly about this issue than even the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	The constitutional issues have already been well discussed. My view is that the Government's enthusiasm for the separation of powers falters when they are faced with the fundamental issue—the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. The Government were extremely enthusiastic about removing the noble and learned Law Lords from your Lordships' House because, frankly, it will not make a ha'p'orth of difference in terms of power whether they make their judgments in your Lordships' House or in a Supreme Court down the road. By contrast, it will make a great deal of difference as to whether or not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has a veto over the Prime Minister's choice of a judge to chair an inquiry.
	Much of this debate has been about whether or not a particular judge ought to be able to say "yes" or "no" to an invitation or whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to be able to say "yes" or "no" on behalf of a particular judge. If that were the only issue I would feel less strongly than I do about this amendment; but that is not just the issue. The real issue is whether or not any judge, at all, should be chairing a particular inquiry for which the Prime Minister has to make a choice. That is the fundamental issue.
	On that issue, I share the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, about the wisdom of our friends across the Atlantic. The views of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on this matter are extremely sound. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 135.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	4 Clause 54, page 26, line 9, leave out subsection (2)

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This is the privilege amendment. It is a technical amendment to remove the privilege amendment to Clause 54, which was inserted at Third Reading in this House. As this House cannot consider matters of money and charges on public funds, the amendment was inserted. Members in the other place passed at Second Reading a money resolution for the Bill and at Committee stage agreed that the amendment should be removed.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	[The page and line references are to Bill 71, as first printed for the Commons.]
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	1 Clause 18, page 46, line 1, leave out subsection (3)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
	We are considering the Disability Discrimination Bill following its amendment in another place. Only one substantive amendment was made to the Bill, which was to remove subsection (3) of Clause 18, which inserted a new subparagraph 2A into paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The effect of the sub-paragraph would have been to enable a person with two periods of depression, when the first occurred in the preceding five years and had had substantial adverse effects on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities for six months or more, to meet the long-term requirement of the definition of disability for the purposes of the DDA.
	That new provision was debated extensively on Report in this House and, as I explained, the Government considered the provision was flawed on a number of points. Fundamentally, it cuts across one of the basic principles of the DDA—that the Act is intended to provide protection against discrimination for people who are disabled in the generally accepted sense of the term; that is, that they have a long-term, or permanent impairment. The idea that a person who has been impaired by depression for six months, perhaps following a bereavement, should be regarded as disabled for life after having a further but short and unconnected period of depression—perhaps a fortnight—flies in the face of common sense.
	Basically we are making a distinction between depressive illness, which is rightly covered by the DDA, and unconnected separate periods of depression, which can be triggered by bad luck events that may affect individuals. But it is simply not true that that means that depression has less coverage, because anyone with a depressive illness as diagnosed receives—and rightly so—full coverage under the Act. That does not indicate that, in seeking to reverse the amendment made in this House, we do not take the social barriers faced by people with mental health conditions seriously. Indeed, we are addressing these barriers through measures such as the removal of the "clinically well recognised" requirement in the DDA definition and our implementation of the wide-ranging recommendations in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on mental health and social exclusion.
	Nor does this Bill represent the end of the disability rights agenda. The scrutiny committee asked the DRC to review the social model of disability and we welcome that review. We believe that the need for any future changes to the definition should be considered in that context. It is something that needs to be addressed in just such a strategic way, not through piecemeal amendment of the DDA. My department very much looks forward to working with the DRC to see if we can find a way through these issues.
	The DRC has said that,
	"this Bill is urgently needed to outlaw discrimination in key areas of daily life and break down the institutional barriers which impede the social inclusion of 10 million disabled people across Britain".
	The commission recognises that even with the removal of the new provision on depression the Bill contains vital new rights and provisions for mental health service users. It agrees with us that its review of the social model is the right way to take the matter forward.
	This Bill is vital to ensuring disabled people have greater opportunities to participate fully in society. We cannot deny them those opportunities by seeking to overturn the amendment made in the other place. Therefore, I beg to move that the amendment made in the other place is agreed to.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government's position on this matter. I note that her colleague in another place, the Minister for Disabled People, said yesterday that,
	"we have thought long and hard"—[Official Report, 6/4/05; col. 1501.],
	about whether the amendment could be incorporated. They may have thought long and hard about the amendment but the fact of the matter is that they did not pursue their thought very far. The other place has chosen not to listen to the large number of people in this country who are affected by depression.
	As the noble Baroness said, earlier this year we debated the matter in detail during the passage of the Bill in this House. We on these Benches, along with the Joint Select Committee on the Bill feel that there is a strong case for people with recurring depression to be better protected under the Disability Discrimination Act. Depressive illnesses have a strong tendency to recur. At least 50 per cent of people, following their first episode of major depression, will go on to have at least one more episode, with those experiencing their first episode of depression before the age of 20 being particularly susceptible to relapse. Meanwhile, the risk of recurrence of an episode of depression within a five-year period is about 70 per cent.
	Defending the Government's position on Report, the Minister claimed, as she has again today, that the DDA already enables people with recurring or fluctuating conditions, including depression, to meet the long-term definition of disability if there is a continuing underlying impairment, and thus they are covered by the Act both in the past and as amended. This continuing underlying impairment is most commonly known as dystemia and is so rarely used by GPs or psychiatrists as to be worthless, besides which a person might have two or more bouts of depression in a five-year period without any underlying condition being found.
	The discrimination faced by people with depression or a history of depression is most commonly based on stigma. A recent study found that where two job applications, one disclosing a diagnosis of diabetes, the other one of depression, were submitted to 200 personnel managers, the applicant with depression had significantly reduced chances of employment. The Government have recognised the debilitating effects of stigma in relation to HIV and some forms of cancer, and have changed the definition of disability in the Bill accordingly. Not to do the same—as I have argued before—in relation to depression is both perverse and of itself discriminatory.
	It is true that the change in the definition brought about by our "depression amendment"—I am using shorthand—would exclude some people who did not fit the new definition. However, it was a much needed and much called for step in the right direction. It is a recognition of a problem and an attempt to deal with it. The Government's insistence on removing the amendment makes it look as if they are ignoring the problem in the vain hope that it will go away. It sullies what is in most respects—especially with the scrutiny of your Lordships' House—a much improved piece of legislation with no fewer than 13 agreed amendments to the Bill. Should the Government be re-elected and more case law prove that the amended Act is still not working for people with depression, will they look again at this intractable problem for people with this kind of mental illness? I am glad that the Minister has just said that the DRC, as the scrutiny committee suggested, will look again at the social model, which of itself would cover people with depression.
	We should not have been put in this position today. The Bill both could and should have been introduced much earlier when there would have been time to come to an agreed solution. However, we welcome the fact that the Government have managed to arrange their timetable, particularly in these curious electoral circumstances, to enable this Bill to go through. In the normal way of things I would fight tooth and nail to keep a version of this amendment in the Bill. However, we would never risk the loss of the Bill over the Government's stubbornness and as such it is with great regret that I advise your Lordships to accept the Motion from the other place.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, the Bill is clearly very soon to become law, and I am delighted. This is an exciting moment for disabled people all across Britain; and I thank my noble friend for her constancy in pressing the measure forward with all possible speed. Its purpose is further to establish that what is morally unacceptable—as discrimination against disabled people that leaves them doubly disabled must surely be regarded—will no longer be legally permissible.
	Naturally, I thank and most warmly congratulate also my honourable friend Maria Eagle, the Minister for Disabled People, on her striking achievement in steering the Bill so successfully to the statute book.
	I know that both my noble friend and Maria will join me now in marking the huge contribution made in this policy area by my noble friend Lord Ashley. Regrettably, he is unable to be here today but our thoughts are with him. Could my noble friend have been here he would, I know, have thanked all the parliamentarians on both sides of both Houses of Parliament who have contributed to making the Bill so admirable. I am sure he would have acknowledged too the extremely important role played by my noble friend Lord Carter. I too am most grateful to him.

Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, it was a recommendation of the Select Committee, which I chaired, that there should be some attempt to deal with this issue. Indeed, I tabled an amendment in Committee so that we could explore the issue. When it was put to the vote at a later stage, I felt that it was appropriate for me as the chairman of the Joint Committee to abstain on that vote.
	We are where we are. We have heard the arguments from my noble friend the Minister and the powerful argument made in the other place yesterday by the Minister, Maria Eagle. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I welcome the reference to the DRC and the use of the social model, which will go much wider than depression. That is a good step forward.
	As this is the last chance that we shall have to discuss this Bill, it is worth pointing out that it completes a quartet of Bills which have been passed since 1997: the Disability Rights Commission Act; the special educational needs Bill; the Mental Capacity Bill, which completed its passage on Tuesday, and this Disability Discrimination Bill. As the chairman of the Joint Select Committee on both the Mental Capacity Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill, I feel like a fond parent who has seen two babies put safely to bed.

Lord Rix: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, talked about both sides of the House. I hope that I may represent the third party, the Cross Benches, in thanking all concerned in ensuring that this most important Bill goes through this afternoon. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for not in any way holding up the Bill and I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for the way she has helped the Bill to go through the House with a number of amendments. At the same time, she accepted the arguments that I put forward regarding the harassment of people with a learning disability. I wish the Bill Godspeed when it becomes an Act, and I am sure that all people with disabilities will gain through its passage through this House today.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I will first just say a few words about the amendment. To be perfectly honest, the Bill would have been better if we had kept the amendment in. I feel that it was based not so much on an idea but on the practice and on what happens, which is why I always supported it. If I am wrong, we will leave it alone; if not, we will come back to it—that is the fact of the matter. We are not yet in a position where we can relax our duty of vigilance on this. I have always hoped that we would bring forward a Bill that would allow us to back off and where Parliament would not need to be quite as vigilant as it has been. We may have cut down the areas where we are striving forward, and the Bill is undoubtedly a good thing. Whether it is as good as it could have been is another matter.
	I thank both Ministers who have been in charge of this Bill for the way in which they have handled it. I thank them for the times when I know that they had to battle in government departments and in Whitehall to make the Bill better. It was also easy, on a Bill where you almost agree and you have the same aim, to have the most incredibly scratchy arguments. We have steered clear of that most of the time, and I thank the Ministers and everyone who took part for that. I hope that my pessimism on certain parts of this is proved to be incorrect. I also hope that we do not have to have another Bill quite as quickly or so very soon. I am afraid that it is a watching brief, and we shall see how it pans out.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, from the mobile Bench, I would like to say a few words of thanks to all those who have worked on the Bill. There is a great deal still to be done in many fields of disability to make people aware. I hope very much that the Bill will help in the progress of disability throughout the land.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in a way we have almost heard speeches on the Bill do now pass, and I am delighted that noble Lords were able to smuggle in now what we are pressed to avoid at Third Reading. I would like particularly to join my noble friend Lord Morris in paying tribute not only to those noble Lords present but to those who are not here today for their very real contribution not just over the past few months, but over their lifetimes to the cause of disability issues.
	I would like to make a couple of brief points on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I recognise and I appreciate that he is not seeking to jeopardise the future of the Bill by seeking to test the will of the House. We did think long and hard, but the result of thinking long and hard, particularly on my part, is that I was unpersuaded. The notion that if you think longer you agree with your opponent seems to me to be a rationalist fallacy on the part of the noble Lord. When he said that we needed to ensure that people with recurring depression—and then he moved across into talking about depressive illness—are covered, I absolutely agreed with him. They will be. I wonder whether the gap between us is as great as he thinks it may be.
	For example, almost everyone in your Lordships' House will have lost a parent, and many of us will have lost both parents. It is conceivable that the loss of one parent produced a period of depression of, say, six months and the loss of another parent perhaps another month some three or four years later. That would apply to almost everyone; losing two parents, grieving, being depressed, possibly requiring some medical support or help at that time. Does that mean that we are therefore all permanently under the coverage of DDA? No, I do not think so. I fully take the point made by the noble Lord about diagnosis, labelling and so on. In our daily lives we do know the difference between what I would call the bad luck events of bereavement, loss of job, divorce, and a depressive illness, which is a clinical situation. However, if someone has a depressive illness that person is rightly protected against severe stigma.
	It would be like saying that if someone went skiing, broke their leg, and was off and then three years later broke their shoulder and was off work for many months, that they should be permanently covered under the DDA. They would be if those fractures were the results of osteoporosis, but if they were separate, unconnected incidents, they would not be. We should not be importing back into mental health, particularly given that we have got rid of the definition of clinically well recognised, stronger barriers or protections than currently exist under physical health. That would be an inappropriate way to go.
	Having said that, we all accept, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made that point well, that this is not necessarily the end of the matter. By having a DRC, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, we put the engine into the 1995 Act, which we all supported, but it lacked power to deliver. By establishing the DRC it has power to deliver and its codes of guidance, its consultative role and so on mean that this is an ongoing dynamic. We may over time decide that as a Parliament we should move more towards recognising the social rather than the medical model of disability. That will be for the DRC to establish in conjunction with the voluntary groups and to persuade your Lordships and the other House. At that point, I am sure that we will continue to revisit any issues on which the consensus and the evidence suggest we should.
	I am pleased that noble Lords are willing to see this Bill reach the statute book. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and if my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who has done such excellent work on the Bill, will allow, I agree with every word that he said about this amendment, and I hope that we can return to the issue. Obviously, the passage of the Bill and getting it in the statute book must be paramount at this stage.
	This is probably the swansong of the noble Baroness in this Parliament. We have been opposite each other now for some eight years. In that period, the other place has restricted more and more, by programming motions, their ability to deal with legislation. The burden has fallen more and more on your Lordships' House. That has been particularly so in terms of the mass of legislation that has descended on us from the Department for Work and Pensions and with which, to a large extent, the noble Baroness has dealt single-handed. I take this opportunity to express thanks on behalf of the whole House for the way in which she has been open-minded on many of those issues, has adopted a constructive approach throughout and has been generous in providing briefings and so on. That is very much in the spirit of the House of Lords and the way in which we deal with matters. I add my personal thanks to the noble Baroness.
	In accord with the spirit of the times, I feel bound to say that we shall look forward to debating these matters further with the noble Baroness sitting on this side of the House rather than that. When she first arrived in government she earned a great reputation for the way in which she dealt with opposition. We look forward to her enhancing her reputation in that respect in the future.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as my late husband said, the key thing you need to know about people is whether they like their compliments forehand or backhand. I think that counts as backhand.
	In the spirit in which it was intended, if not necessarily delivered, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. On this Bill, as on many that your Lordships have been involved with, on pensions, jobseekers' allowance and the like, the method of Lords scrutiny, providing that the issue was not either high profile ideologically or very expensive, or dealt with in a sharp and pointed way, allowed us to progress in ways that are not always available to the other House.
	I know from work not just on this Bill but on many others how much better and robust the legislation is made by responding to well voiced, evidence-based concerns from the opposition Benches. Certainly, when I was in opposition, I used to get exasperated and muscle up to John Mackay afterwards saying, "I moved 20 amendments, you should have adopted one of them, why the hell did you not adopt one amendment? You should take them seriously". I remember thinking at the time that that was an inappropriate way for a House to behave, particularly this House.
	I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I look forward to him supporting other measures that I am sure my Government intend to introduce after the election that will continue to add to the common good and the commonweal of all our citizens.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	2 Clause 20, page 47, line 23, leave out subsection (12).

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This is the privilege amendment.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Carter: My Lords, I promise not to delay the House for more than a moment, but it is the second time today that we have had this performance with a privilege amendment; we had it on the Inquiries Bill, too. It is an extraordinary procedure in which we nod a privilege amendment into a Bill in the House of Lords without any debate, and it is then removed in the House of Commons without any further debate. I hope that one day we will accept the sensible suggestion made some years ago by, I believe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we should have one Motion at the beginning of the Session to deal with privilege, and that that is the end of it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF A CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO
	[The page and line references are to HL Bill 71, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]
	:TITLE3:LORDS AMENDMENT
	1 Clause 13, page 12, line 10, at end insert—
	"(1A) An Executive that has been consulted under subsection (1) in relation to a franchise agreement where the services to be provided under the agreement are or include services for the carriage of passengers by railways within the passenger transport area of that Executive may, before the expiry period of 60 days following the date on which that consultation began, make a statement to the Secretary of State specifying—
	(a) the services for the carriage of passengers by railway which the Passenger Transport Authority for the area in question considers it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within that area, so far as relating to the provision of services of the same description as those to be provided under the franchise agreement in question;
	(b) any minimum level of quality to which any services so specified are to be provided;
	(c) any requirements with respect to the fares to be charged to persons using any services so specified; and
	(d) any minimum level of quality with respect to the operation of any station within the area in question which may be required by any such franchise agreement.
	(1B) Where a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in England submits a statement under subsection (1A) the Secretary of State shall ensure that the services, and any minimum levels of quality or requirements with respect to fares, specified in that statement are provided for in any franchise agreement into which he may enter in respect of the services in which the Executive have an interest.
	(1C) The Secretary of State need not do anything under subsection (1B) if or to the extent that it would—
	(a) have an adverse effect on the provision of services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway (whether inside or outside the area in question); or
	(b) increase the amount of any expenditure of the Secretary of State in respect of railways under agreements or any other arrangements entered into with any franchise operator, any franchisee, or any servant, agent or independent contractor of a franchise operator or franchisee, and the Secretary of State considers that the Executive would not fund that increased expenditure."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	1A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

LORDS AMENDMENT

2 Page 12, line 16, at end insert—
	"(2A) Where a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in England submits a statement under subsection (1A) the Executive shall be a party to any franchise agreement in respect of any services specified in the statement providing that the Executive becomes a party to the agreement within 60 days of the agreement being finalised."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	2A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

LORDS AMENDMENT

3 Page 12, line 41, leave out from "unless" to end of line and insert "one of the conditions in subsection (5A) is met"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	3A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

LORDS AMENDMENT

4 Page 12, line 41, at end insert—
	"(5A) The conditions referred to in subsection (5) are—
	(a) that the agreement is not for purposes relating to or connected with the provisions of—
	(i) services for the carriage of passengers by railway; or
	(ii) station services provided for purposes connected with any such services;
	(b) that the agreement relates exclusively to the grant of permission for a person to use a railway facility where a Passenger Transport Executive is the facility owner or the person granted permission; and
	(c) the agreement is approved by the Secretary of State."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	4A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

LORDS AMENDMENT

5 Page 12, line 43, leave out "(5)" and insert "(5A)"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	5A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

LORDS AMENDMENT

6 Page 13, line 12, at end insert—
	"(8A) If the Secretary of State considers it desirable to do so in relation to any franchise agreement in respect of services for the carriage of passengers by railway he may give a direction to the Passenger Transport Executive or Executives for the area or areas concerned providing that any one or more of subsections (1A), (1B) or (2A), or any part of any one of those subsections, shall not have effect with respect to that franchise agreement."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	6A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

LORDS AMENDMENT

7 Page 13, line 17, at end insert "except that in the case of subsection (1A) it is a reference only to a service for the carriage of passengers by railway between places in that area"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	7A Because it is inappropriate for Passenger Transport Executives to have the involvement in the franchising of railway passenger services that would result from the provision to be made by Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 7.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 1A to 7A.
	We have had considerable debate in this House on this important issue, in Grand Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. All aspects of it have been fully aired, so I do not intend to detain the House long. The amendments passed by this House and rejected by the other place seek to maintain a system that encourages confrontation and enables the PTEs to indulge in brinksmanship—all of which costs the national taxpayer money and cuts across the vision for the future of rail set out in the rail White Paper.
	I understand the sincerity, persistence and effectiveness with which noble Lords have pressed their amendments on the issues, and we had interesting debates on them at all stages of the Bill. However, noble Lords' concerns are misplaced. The loss of co-signatory status will not materially affect the PTEs' ability to invest in their local rail network or to have access to the information relating to rail that they require for their transport planning purposes. Nor will the PTEs be excluded from informing the development of the shape of services in their area, as there is a clear commitment that they will be a key player feeding into the service specification. All that the Bill will do is remove the PTEs' ability to dictate to the Secretary of State, which is a power that can lead to confrontation—we seek to avoid that—and that cuts across the rail White Paper's vision for the future of the railways.
	The Government are clear that we cannot accept the Bill if the amendments are included in it. Given that there is general consensus throughout this House and the other place that what this Bill seeks to achieve is positive for the railways, I hope that noble Lords will agree with our democratically elected colleagues in the other place and with the Commons amendments.
	Moved, Motion A, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 1A to 7A.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 7".
	I hear what the Minister says, but am still not satisfied with what he says. In another place, the Minister with responsibility for railways yesterday said that the amendments,
	"raise a matter of principle about which the Government are clear. There is a new role for the PTEs"—
	the passenger transport executives. I honestly believe that their role has been significantly diminished—that is certainly the case—and that there is new role for them in the Government's mind, perhaps as there was in Mr Flight's mind about what would happen when there was a new government. They have a secret agenda for the PTEs, which is that the PTEs will be the instrument lumbered with any of the Government's proposals for the substituting of railway services with bus services.
	PTEs will be presented with a prescription by government that will leave them with choices to make, which will be formulated on the basis that there is insufficient money to sustain their railway services. The unfortunate passenger transport executives will be left with making the unpleasant choices about the future size and shape of the railway. If my forecast turns out to be true as a result of the general election, and if the Minister is still enjoying the position he enjoys today, I shall be extremely strong in my criticism and shall not forget the warning that I give him.
	Reference was made in another place to,
	"the role of the Secretary of State in setting the strategic direction and the amount of national funding that will be invested in the railways".
	It was said that:
	"The system that the PTEs are seeking to retain is totally inconsistent with that principle".
	It has not been inconsistent so far with the management of train services. The Minister there also said:
	"The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised here and in another place about PTEs".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/4/05; cols. 1525–26.]
	The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, may confirm what I believe to be the case—that the amendments tabled by the MPs for Manchester were not discussed in another place, but guillotined. The Government did not listen to the representations that those MPs were going to make on behalf of the PTEs. That is one reason why this House is the only vehicle in which such protestations may be made.
	It is unfortunate that there is a very tight timetable, as with so much legislation. The Government embarked on a Queen's Speech that we all agree contained far too much legislation.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, the Greater Manchester MPs' amendments were all guillotined on 27 January.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, that says a great deal about how much consideration was given to the Bill in the other place.
	Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to a costly delay, and by the Minister in another place to the desire to "reopen negotiations". The amendment that I moved yesterday did not allow for the reopening of negotiations. It allowed the minimum time that I thought necessary for someone to decide that they were to sign an agreement. Sixty days is not long, and every contract allows the parties to mull over what they will sign. We never suggested that the PTEs should spend the Government's money. We said that their own money could be spent if they desired to enhance the services—if they wanted a new station, more rolling stock or an extra trip here or there.
	I again warn the Minister that I shall be vigilant to see who delays the franchises, now that the PTEs are apparently going to be taken out of the loop. Every time that there is a delay occasioned either by the Secretary of State, his civil servants or by the franchise company, I shall be asking him how much that delay is costing. I do not believe that the PTEs had in mind that they would cost any money at all.
	Mr McNulty said that it would allow the PTEs to "dictate" to the Secretary of State which services would be provided in their areas. That is wrong. It did not allow that, it allowed them to be co-signatories. It would, as he said yesterday, put them on "an equal legal footing", because that is what they wanted. They would be seen by the train operating companies as real parties to the agreement. So they could approach the train operating companies as a party to the agreement and argue with them about the adequacy of the services that they were providing.
	I am mulling over whether the Minister for railways has been more mindful of the pressure which may have been brought on him by ATOC, the Association of Train Operating Companies, or by civil servants, rather than those MPs who represent the large conurbations in this country that are affected.
	That brings me to the question of the end result and whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed. I have concluded that it is the job of the House of Lords to be as obstructive as possible about those constitutional issues upon which we disagree with the Government. It may also be right for us to disagree when we think that the law is being transgressed. It is not our role to intervene in the process of making law when that process is being subverted by stubbornness and pig-headedness, which can be my only description of the attitude of the Minister in this case.
	I am sure that this issue will return to haunt us. I am sure that we are right, but I honestly believe that this is a case where the sins of the Government will be visited quickly on them by the electors in the conurbations on whose rights they have unjustly stamped.
	Moved, Motion A1, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 7".—(Lord Bradshaw.)

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, we remain baffled and perplexed as to why the Minister will not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. It was changed to take account of the concerns raised on Report, but the Minister ignored those changes in his response to the amendment at Third Reading yesterday.
	The Government's position flew in the face of local communities. As most PTEs are Labour controlled, his stance shows what little faith the Government have in their own local supporters. The Minister will now have to face their anger. I am sorry, but not as sorry as he may be, when the day comes, that he did not take the good advice from his own Benches when it was offered yesterday.
	We have done all that we can to persuade the Government to change their minds. Now the Minister and his department must live with the consequences of his policy.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my prediction in moving the first Motion has been fulfilled—namely, that the arguments have been put with the customary force and trenchancy of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw; but they have not changed in any way from our debates at Third Reading, on Report and in Committee.
	I would give counsel only on one matter regarding the noble Lord's contribution. It ill-behoves us to call into question procedures in another place. We all have our frustrations when things do not go quite our way in debates elsewhere, but—speaking from the experience of a rather more disciplined and at times more coherent operation in the Commons, which is presided over by a Speaker who ensures that people stick to the rules—the constant repetition of not just the same arguments but almost the same phrases through each stage of a Bill is not present there. So we must be careful that the noble pot is not calling the kettle black.
	I have heard the noble Lord's comments and I understand his frustrations about yesterday. It is not correct to say that all amendments in the other place were not considered. Graham Stringer, a notable Member for a Manchester constituency and a former leader of the local authority and a significant force in that community, presented his amendments. When I indicated, as did the Minister in the other place yesterday, that we were listening to representations, it was true. That is why we have been emphatic about the extent to which we view the role of the PTEs in being consulted about the work on the development of franchises.
	I heard the dire warning from the noble Lord, which was expressed in somewhat fresh terms. He was investing the PTEs with a different responsibility—the job of closures of parts of the railways and saying that their role in that would be accentuated. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot argue, on the one hand, that the Bill takes the PTEs out of the framework altogether and then say, on the other hand, that when there is a nasty job to do the Bill takes careful account of the fact that it is the PTEs which will take responsibility, not the Secretary of State. That contradiction will not hold.
	Regarding closures, I cannot comment on every aspect of the railway in terms of its inviolability, but I know that this Government have a record of investment in the railway which betokens the extent to which we recognise how significant it is to our economy, to our society and to the need for movement that our developing society clearly identifies. We have invested both significant sums of money in the recent past and we have the commitment, backed up by the necessary resources, to guarantee that the investment continues.
	So we should not allow the shadow of the concept of closure to be related to a Bill which is about creating a structure in which investment will continue, will be substantial and which will be made by the Secretary of State, who is accountable for such resources.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I know that my noble friend would wish to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The noble Lord was talking about what happened to these same amendments on 27 January. They were unceremoniously guillotined. That is understood all over Greater Manchester. I wish to be fair also to my noble friend Lord Davies. He has had a very difficult task in debating these amendments. He was the only person in this House at Second Reading, on Report and at Third Reading to support the Government's stance. That took some courage and fortitude, so I am not unmindful of his contribution.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am also grateful for the fact that he has picked me up on one point. I entirely accept that amendments tabled by Manchester MPs were guillotined and not debated in Committee. I was not seeking to contradict that. I was seeking to emphasise that when we said we were responsive to and recognised such points, there had been occasions on which Manchester MPs, and a person as significant as Graham Stringer, had been able to make an important case to which we were mindful and responsive. I spoke in that context and was not decrying the facts put forward by the noble Lord. I apologise if my contribution appeared to do so.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on his persistence. He does not need to warn me about his scrutiny and surveillance in the future. If I had the good fortune to return to the Dispatch Box on these issues, I would have no doubt that he would continue in the same vein. In the democratic debate in which we all engage—this is also true of the Official Opposition—we all benefit from contributions that clarify the issues. I have no doubt about the future scrutiny. I hope and trust that, if we are able to engage in these matters in future, we shall do so in the same spirit of constructive discussion that has existed throughout the passage of the Bill.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I accept that we have done all we can, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion A1, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Motion A agreed to.
	:TITLE3:LORDS AMENDMENT
	14 Schedule 4, page 94, line 9, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Office of Rail Regulation shall not be entitled to make a determination under paragraph 1G(2) which is likely to lead to the services provided with the use or in respect of any railway facility being curtailed or discontinued (whether as to quality, time or in any other respect) unless the requirements of paragraph 1(G)(2B) have been complied with and the conditions in paragraph 1G(2C) have been satisfied.
	(2B) The requirements are that the Office of Rail Regulation has consulted—
	(a) the facility owner and the beneficiaries of all access contracts in respect of the railway facility in question; and
	(b) the franchisee under every franchise agreement which contemplates the franchisee, or any person on its behalf, using the railway facility in question,
	and has taken into consideration all representations and objections made to it by those persons in respect of the proposed determination.
	(2C) The Office of Rail Regulation may not make a determination under paragraph 1G(2) unless it is satisfied that—
	(a) the value of the rights of such facility owner and the beneficiaries under or in respect of that railway facility or those access contracts shall not be adversely affected by the proposed determination, or that adequate financial compensation shall be payable to them out of public financial resources in respect of any such adverse effect; and
	(b) in the case of a franchise agreement, the agreement shall be amended so as to relieve the franchisee from the obligation to comply with its terms to the extent that, if the agreement were not amended, compliance would be impossible or more onerous by reason of the proposed determination.
	(2D) If the Office of Rail Regulation fails to make a determination under paragraph 1G(2) by reason of one or both of the considerations specified in paragraph 1G(2C), the Secretary of State or Scottish ministers as appropriate shall ensure that public financial resources shall be increased accordingly."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendments in lieu—
	14A Page 93, line 32, at end insert—

"Notification of likely adverse effect on interests of certain providers of railway services

1FA (1) If, at any time in the course of an access charges review, it appears to the Office of Rail Regulation that it is likely that the implementation of the review will adversely affect the interests of persons providing railway passenger services or of persons providing services for the carriage of goods by railway, that Office must so notify—
	(a) the Secretary of State, in the case of a review notice of which was given to him under paragraph 1C; and
	(b) the Scottish Ministers, in the case of a review notice of which was given to them under that paragraph.
	(2) Where the Office of Rail Regulation gives a notification under sub-paragraph (1) in respect of a review relating to an access agreement to which a facility owner is a party, the notification must include—
	(a) its assessment of the measures that the facility owner is likely to be required to take, as a consequence of the implementation of the review, in order to meet obligations of his arising under the access agreement in question or under any other access agreement to which he is a party; and
	(b) its estimate of the cost to the facility owner of taking those measures.
	(3) On being notified under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers or (as the case may be) each of them—
	(a) may revise any information provided under paragraph 1D to the Office of Rail Regulation, together with any suggestion made under paragraph 1E; and
	(b) if the information or such a suggestion is revised, must notify the revisions to that Office.
	(4) Any notification under sub-paragraph (3) must be given within whatever period is specified by the Office of Rail Regulation when notifying the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers in accordance with sub-paragraph (1).
	(5) Where the Office of Rail Regulation has already given a notification under this paragraph, it is required to give a further notification under this paragraph only if—
	(a) information provided to it has been revised in response to its notification; and
	(b) it has not previously given a notification in respect of an earlier revision of that information."
	14B Page 93, line 44, after "1F" insert "or 1FA"
	14C Page 94, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) In conducting an access charges review the Office of Rail Regulation must have regard to the consequences of compliance by a facility owner who is a party to the access agreement in question of any terms—
	(a) of that agreement, or
	(b) of any other access agreement to which that facility owner is a party,
	that it considers are relevant to a matter notified under paragraph 1FA (including, in particular, a term requiring the facility owner to pay compensation or to take mitigatory measures)."
	14D Page 94, line 19, after "1F(3)(b)" insert "or 1FA(3)(b)"
	14E Page 95, line 29, after "1F" insert "or 1FA"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14A to 14E in lieu thereof.
	On this Motion, I hope to be conceived of as being in a more constructive vein and more responsive to the extensive debates in this House and the other place. In both Houses, the concerns of train operators about the adverse effects on their businesses have been recognised. They were concerned about an access charges review resulting in reduced capacity on the rail network. That was recognised in the amendment agreed to yesterday by this House.
	The other place has not accepted that amendment in full but has proposed Amendments Nos. 14A to 14E, which have a similar effect, while keeping to certain principles in the Bill that we debated yesterday. Although the operators' contracts provide for mitigation of and compensation for any adverse affects arising from a change to the network's capability, there is no explicit requirement for either the Office of Rail Regulation or the Secretary of State to consider such matters during an access charges review.
	The Secretary of State and the Office of Rail Regulation have made public undertakings that issues of mitigation and compensation for adverse affects will form part of the access charges review. However, the other place recognised that this House did not consider those undertakings to be adequate and wished that those points should be enshrined in legislation.
	The amendments address that concern, confirming in statute that which has already been committed to in the written undertakings. Amendment No. 14A makes it the duty of the Office of Rail Regulation to notify the Secretary of State when it appears that such adverse affects are likely and to advise the Secretary of State of the mitigation and compensation in accordance with the terms of the access contracts and the network code that would be required and of the costs of the measures. The amendment then gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to revise his specification or budget, or both, to mitigate the adverse affects. The amendment therefore addresses the points in respect of resolving the issues of compensation and mitigation by other means, such as a revised specification, by contrast with the amendment carried yesterday in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which would require the budget to be increased without an option to revise the specification.
	Amendment No. 14C also requires the Office of Rail Regulation, in conducting an access charge review, to have regard to any adverse consequences for train operators and, in particular, to any need for mitigating measures or compensation, or both. Of course, such adverse consequences may not arise from an access charge review, but the amendment ensures that, if they ever do arise, the Office of Rail Regulation and the Secretary of State will be obliged to take full account of the consequential need for mitigation or compensation.
	The amendments are drafted in such a way as to ensure that the compensation is as set out in the contract and that the Office of Rail Regulation could not determine that the compensation was not adequate. It is, after all, the Office of Rail Regulation that approves access contracts.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has said that he is concerned that compensation should be available where the franchise contract is made more onerous or impossible to deliver. I want to reassure the Official Opposition on that point, as my department's officials were at discussions this morning aimed at ensuring that the compensation payable under the network code would cover the point.
	I hope that the House will recognise that an amendment moved forcefully and carried in this House yesterday has been addressed by the other place in constructive terms. We have stuck to our objection to that amendment—it increased unacceptably the Secretary of State's liability—but have proposed amendments that ensure that mitigation and compensation can be taken into account properly within the framework of the principles of the Bill. Accordingly, I commend the Motion to the House.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14A to 14E in lieu thereof.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, we are most grateful to the Minister for taking our concerns on board and producing an alternative amendment and for the assurances he has just given. The compromise amendment that we have been offered is weak, as it depends on existing contracts carrying rights to compensation if the rail network deteriorates. It does not give the protections that are necessary; it lacks teeth if the ORR uses its power to remove the compensation rights of the operator.
	It does not go as far as we would like in offering the protections that are necessary, but it is better than nothing. The Minister has been as helpful as he has been able and has done so with good grace. We thank him for the amendment and accept it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
	Britain is today experiencing the longest period of sustained economic growth since records began in 1701. In addition, that period of sustained growth has been combined with low inflation, low interest rates and the lowest level of unemployment for a generation. Since 1997, more than 2.1 million jobs have been created, while according to the International Labour Organisation, unemployment has fallen by more than 635,000, remaining consistently below 1 million since February 2001.
	In his Budget speech in March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer renewed the Government's commitment to monetary and fiscal discipline and economic stability. The Government remain on track to meet their fiscal rules.
	At the same time, the Government are able to continue to invest in the long-term service provision that matters most to the people of this country. In his speech, the Chancellor reiterated the Government's commitment to long-term investment in our National Health Service and announced an increase in spending on health of £23 billion for 2007–08. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, that he has not missed anything except the gloat! The Finance Bill builds on our successes, strengthens and modernises the economy, and helps to prepare the United Kingdom for the challenges of the future.
	The Government are determined to close down the opportunities for tax avoidance and evasion and to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. The Finance Bill includes a number of measures to deliver exactly that objective. Clauses 59 to 79 introduce anti-avoidance legislation for film tax reliefs. The aim of these measures is to remove opportunities for abusing the film tax reliefs and to put such matters beyond doubt for the film industry in the future.
	Clause 58 extends the relief for low-budget British films until next year to enable detailed consultation with the industry on replacement film tax reliefs so that future support for the industry can be provided on a stable basis that is less vulnerable to tax avoidance schemes.
	The Government are also introducing new anti-avoidance rules, which will counter a tax advantage in specific circumstances where a UK tax avoidance motive is present. Clauses 85 to 91 will tackle excessive claims for double taxation relief.
	Enterprise is crucial to ensuring that the United Kingdom is well equipped to compete in increasingly globalised markets. Clauses 10 to 13 will mean that corporation tax rates will remain frozen for this year. This sees the starting rate for small companies remain at 0 per cent.
	Clauses 20 to 22 will remove the tax uncertainty surrounding the formation of university spinout companies. Rules will ignore the effect on shares acquired by researchers on the transfer of intellectual property into a spinout company and remove the consequent up-front tax and national insurance contribution charge.
	Clause 96 brings to an end stamp duty relief in disadvantaged areas. This relief was time-limited by state aids approval to 31 December 2006 and is now ended to provide certainty to businesses. It is followed by the local enterprise growth initiative, which will better target support to drive forward local enterprise and business regeneration.
	Building on the foundation of support for retirement provided by the basic and additional state pensions, the Government continue to focus resources on the poorest pensioners. It is imperative that those who need the most help receive it, and the Government are fully committed to ensuring that that is the case. Clause 9 increases age-related personal allowances in line with earnings. For those aged 65 and over, the allowance will be increased by earnings rather than prices, ensuring that more than half of all pensioners do not have to pay tax.
	Clause 101 makes additions and amendments to the pensions tax simplification legislation introduced in the Finance Act 2004, which will come into force in April 2006. The changes within this clause include measures that give schemes, employers and pension savers additional flexibility. In addition, the Pension Protection Fund, as legislated for in the Pensions Act 2004, came into being yesterday. Clause 102 will ensure that there will be no adverse tax consequences for members of pension schemes taken over by protection funds.
	In his Budget speech, the Chancellor commended our Armed Forces for the services that they perform. Clause 19 will ensure that servicemen and servicewomen who are injured while serving their country will be entitled to new tax-free compensation payments. This clause also amends existing legislation so that benefits payable under the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004 will suffer the same tax treatment as the equivalent benefits payable under the Armed Forces pension scheme.
	The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering sustainable development and a better environment and to tackling the ongoing global challenge of climate change. They continue to use a range of economic instruments and various other means and measures to support those aims. Landfill tax is part of a national policy aimed at reducing the amount of waste disposed of at landfills and encouraging the diversion of waste towards more sustainable uses. Since this tax was introduced, the volume of such waste disposal has fallen by nearly 20 per cent. Clause 99 increases the standard rate of landfill tax on relevant waste disposals with the aim of cutting landfill still further.
	Finally, reflecting vehicle excise duty's environmental focus, Clause 7 will increase the duty rates for the two most polluting vehicle bands, while the lowest four bands will remain frozen.
	The Government also remain committed to their targets to reduce child poverty and, indeed, to eradicate it by 2020. Building on previous increases in financial support for families, the Budget announced a commitment to increase the child element of child tax credit at least in line with average earnings up to and including 2007–08. That will benefit 6.7 million children in 3.5 million homes.
	To help first-time and low-income buyers to purchase their own home, Clause 95 doubles the stamp duty land tax zero-rate threshold to £120,000. To provide a fair and targeted inheritance tax system, Clause 98 introduces increases in the thresholds above indexation for the next three years to £275,000 in 2005–06, £285,000 in 2006–07 and £300,000 in 2007–08. These increases will ensure that 95 per cent of estates remain tax-free.
	The civil partnership legislation introduced last year reflects our changing society and provides the same legal status to civil partners afforded to married couples. Clause 103 takes steps to ensure parity of tax treatment between married couples and civil partners. In keeping with fairness in the tax system, Clauses 46 to 57 introduce changes relating to alternative finance arrangements that do not involve either the paying or receipt of interest, including those designed to be sharia-compliant.
	Both the economy and the public finances are in a strong position and the Government are keen to ensure that our country is prepared for the challenges ahead. This Finance Bill is realistic about the challenges that this country faces in competing with the world economy. The measures to create fairness in the tax system—and in the wider economy—will ensure that more people will be able to benefit from our economic strengths and stability. This is an economy that supports fairness and opportunity for all to enjoy increasing prosperity. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Finance (No. 2) Bill with his usual enthusiasm and with his usual speed of delivery.
	Our annual debate on the Finance Bill provides an opportunity for us to debate the Budget, from which the Bill is derived. This is the only opportunity that your Lordships' House will have to debate last month's Budget Statement and so I shall turn to that in a moment.
	Starting with the Finance Bill itself, it is of course unamendable in your Lordships' House, but it normally arrives here after some scrutiny in another place—not as much as there was in the days before Blair but, none the less, some real scrutiny. And, importantly nowadays, the Finance Bill is scrutinised by a sub-committee of your Lordships' Economic Affairs Committee, and both we and the other place have the benefit of that scrutiny.
	The first Finance Bill was introduced in the other place only last week, but everyone knew that it had no chance of becoming law in that form. It was not as fat as last year's Finance Bill; nevertheless, it ran to two volumes and 341 pages.
	When a similar timing issue in relation to the general election arose in 1992, the then Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Lamont, took through a minimalist Bill—just enough to raise taxes until the result of the election was known: 11 clauses and one schedule. But this Chancellor had to try his luck. He tried with a Bill of 172 clauses and 20 schedules. My honourable friend George Osborne, the shadow Chief Secretary, rightly resisted that. We still have 106 clauses and 11 schedules, but my honourable friend has, in particular, saved the nation from some highly complex anti-avoidance legislation being passed without any parliamentary scrutiny or without the opportunity for outside bodies to contribute to the debate. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that it was,
	"strongly of the view that if the provisions in the Finance Bill are not subject to appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny, this will be to the detriment of UK business and will undermine confidence and trust in the Parliamentary process".
	The sensible stance taken by my honourable friend has avoided that outcome. Let me be clear: we do not support tax avoidance, but we support legislation that is properly considered by Parliament, which includes the work of your Lordships' Economic Affairs Committee. We also support legislation that takes on board the expertise that is available outside Parliament.
	We do not oppose the Finance (No. 2) Bill before us today, but we regret that it still contains some major elements of legislation which, although consulted on, have not been the subject of proper scrutiny. In another place, the Bill received only four hours of parliamentary time. There are some aspects, such as the introduction of tax relief for civil partners and trusts for vulnerable people, that we positively welcome, but I cannot say that our welcome is unqualified for much of the rest of it.
	The Bill is a testament—a last testament, we hope—to a Chancellor who does not begin to understand that there is a crying need for tax simplification. The Bill creates yet more complexity, often altering major taxes such as stamp duty land tax, introduced only a couple of years ago and already amended considerably last year. It is yet another Bill that conceals its real complexity, in that significant secondary legislation will be required to put it into effect. This is no way to run a tax system. The burden imposed by our tax system since 1997 contributes to the diminishing attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business. It is about time that the Chancellor had a good hard look at the harm that that can do.
	I turn to the Budget itself. The Chancellor clearly wants the economy and his economic record to be centre stage in the election campaign. We have no problem with that. We are all accustomed to the boasts of the Chancellor about growth, employment, interest rates and inflation since 1997. Indeed, the Minister referred to that today as "the gloat". Let me remind the House, that all those beneficial trends started way before 1997; they started under my noble friend Lord Lamont and my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke. The real question now is how long those trends can continue under Labour's stewardship.
	We have grave doubts. The Chancellor's forecasts are underpinned by GDP growth rates that look to most people to be optimistic. We know that the Chancellor is running scared because he has stopped the Comptroller and Auditor-General auditing the trend rate of GDP growth. Our policies for fiscal stability, with forecasting placed in the hands of independent experts under the auspices of the NAO, would give future Chancellors nowhere to hide in such circumstances.
	The plain fact is that the Budget will require taxes to rise. The effect of the Budget is that "tax freedom day" in 2005–06—the day that we stop working for the Chancellor—has gone out another three days to 31 May. The Chancellor's own figures show that the tax burden as a percentage of GDP will rise from 36.3 per cent in the fiscal year just completed to 38.5 per cent in 2008–09. We can be sure that that will continue to hit the pockets of ordinary hard working people because income tax and national insurance account for nearly half the increase.
	Worse than that, most forecasters believe that there is a black hole in the Chancellor's arithmetic of anything up to £14 billion. The Minister will be aware that today's opinion by the Advocate-General in the Marks & Spencer case, if confirmed by the ECJ, could create another black hole of at least that amount. To date, the Government have been in denial. We believe that they will need to raise taxes if they are re-elected, and the Minister will have seen today's survey showing that 90 per cent of independent economists share that judgment.
	There is worse yet to come. If we are elected, we will slow the rate of growth in public expenditure. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. We are not talking about cutting public services; we are talking about spending less than Labour by slowing the rate of growth, not by spending less in any one year than is currently spent. The difference is £35 billion in 5 years' time. Yesterday, the Prime Minister got it absolutely right—for a change. He said, at a press conference:
	"If the Labour party in opposition had come along and said, 'We're going to spend £35 billion more than the Conservatives over the next five to six years', you guys"—
	meaning the journalists—
	"would have been hounding us from the moment we said that to election day saying, 'Come on, which taxes are you going to raise then?'".
	That is exactly the right question. So will the Minister finally come clean and tell us what taxes the Government plan to raise after the election, if they are elected? Will it be capital gains tax on homes, VAT on food, or another hit on national insurance?

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for sparing me the one-minute gloat at the start of his speech and for telling me that with his customary good humour. How I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were also able to limit the gloat quota to one minute in his Budget speeches.
	I propose to abide by what I want to call the new Barnett formula for today's debate. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, chided a noble Lord who had made an electioneering speech with the words, "No one in this place has a vote, and no one outside is listening". I believe that that is the right approach to this truncated, pre-election Finance (No. 2) Bill, which, in any case, your Lordships' House is powerless to amend. We wait with interest to see what the Labour election manifesto says on the powers of this place. If we end up with a Chamber whose delaying and amending powers are significantly reduced, we will be in the same position in relation to other Bills as we are on this one, and we would be just a second-rate talking shop.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has read chunks of the Conservative manifesto into the record, as the Americans put it. I do not propose to weary the House by following suit. In a comradely, end-of-term spirit, I welcome particularly one change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill: the sudden abolition, almost two years early, of stamp duty relief on commercial property purchases in so-called disadvantaged areas such as High Holborn and Canary Wharf, for example. That relief has simply collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity. It must be the most ill researched, least considered and worst targeted tax relief ever in this country. The Treasury should be thoroughly ashamed of itself for pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money into the pockets of some of the richest property owners in this country and around the world, without a shred of evidence that it has helped economic regeneration in areas that desperately need it.
	The Bill will now pass, and we on these Benches look forward keenly to the verdict of the voters on our economic policies.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two points to make on the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the scrutiny of the Bill and what was taken out of it so that it could proceed as it is. First, what was left out of the Bill and, therefore, what was left in the Bill, was certainly agreed by the Conservative Front Bench, and I believe also by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So it is not appropriate for anyone in this House to complain about something that has been agreed by both Front Benches in the elected Chamber. Yesterday, a good deal of time was spent by Conservative Back-Benchers disagreeing with their own Front Bench about what was left in the Bill, but that is hardly my problem.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, recognised that there were precedents, particularly in 1983 and 1992. She complained that only four hours were spent in debate on the Bill yesterday, but that succeeded four days of Budget debate which, although the detail of the Bill was not available, nevertheless, covered a large part of the issues that we would be expected to consider.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, repeated—what she has said on many occasions—her grave doubts about the economic future. She contrasted the Treasury forecasts with what she called "most forecasters". The Treasury has looked at its forecasting record, as it always does, against the average of independent forecasters. I say what I have said at least twice yearly for the past seven or eight years, that the Treasury's record in economic forecasting is superior to that of most forecasters. That has been denied on a number of occasions by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. They have always been wrong; I see no reason to suppose that they will not be again today.
	The noble Baroness referred quite properly to the view of the Advocate-General on the Marks and Spencer's case. All I can possibly say about that is that that is the Advocate General's view; it is not the decision of the court. We still believe strongly in the merits of our case and we will await the final judgment of the court before considering whether any further action is required.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, for starting a new Barnett formula. As the Barnett formula for the devolved nations is one which is not going to go away, despite my noble friend Lord Barnett, we will have to call this, as he does I think, Barnett 2. But the noble Lord is quite right—nobody pays very much attention to what we say here on Finance Bills. That tradition goes back a very long way—not least to Commons resolutions of 1678. I take on board what he says about stamp duty relief in disadvantaged areas. I do not claim it was a success. Of course it was always a time-limited relief and it was planned to continue only until the end of next year. I am glad he approves of the fact that it is being withdrawn more quickly. I believe that I have covered the issues raised.
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
	Then, Standing Order 47 having been suspended, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Appropriation Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
	Then, Standing Order 47 having been suspended, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: rose to move, That the rules laid before the House on 14 March be approved [15th Report from the Merits Committee] [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, these rules insert a new Part 76 into the Civil Procedure Rules to support proceedings in the High Court and appeal proceedings in the Court of Appeal under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The rules were made by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice on 11 March 2005, shortly after the Act received Royal Assent. The rules came into force immediately after being made but will cease to have effect after 40 days unless they are approved by Parliament.
	A draft version of the Rules of Court was made available on the morning of 10 March during the final stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The purpose of this amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules is to establish rules to support control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings. Civil Procedure Rules are usually made by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which is the body established by the Civil Procedure Act 1997, with statutory responsibility for maintaining those rules.
	The committee is chaired by the senior Court of Appeal judge, the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and the committee consists of representatives from the judiciary, barristers and solicitors as well as consumer affairs and lay representatives.
	Due to the exceptional circumstances in which the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was passed, it would have been impossible for the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to make the relevant changes to the Rules of Court in the very short period of time available. That is why it was necessary to legislate for a special rule-making procedure to ensure that the Rules of Court for control order proceedings were in place when the first set of control orders were made and served.
	Paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act authorises the Lord Chancellor to make rules on the first occasion after the Act was passed, instead of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The Master of the Rolls is informed before introduction of the Bill of a need for a special procedure to make the first set of rules.
	The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, had made the first set of rules but the Civil Procedure Rules Committee may make any subsequent rules or amendments as and when necessary.
	Rules made by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee will be subject to the normal requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, including the negative resolution procedure. The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005 introduce a new Part 76 to the Civil Procedure Rules. The new rules in Part 76 are based on the general principle that the other provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules should apply to control order proceedings and appeals, subject to any necessary modifications.
	New Part 76 is divided into five sections. Section 1 deals with the scope of this part, the interpretation of the terms used and the necessary modification of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that sensitive information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. It has been modified for the purposes of the new part by placing a new duty on the court to ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest, and by requiring that the overriding objective be read and given effect to in a way which is compatible with that duty.
	Section 2 deals with applications to the High Court relating to derogating control orders. Section 3 deals with permission applications, references and appeals to the High Court relating to non-derogating control orders. Section 4 deals with onward appeals to the Court of Appeal. Section 5 contains general provisions that apply to all proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal brought under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That includes provisions in Rules 76-22 through to 76-25 for closed hearings and the use of special advocates.
	Finally, Section 5 also includes provision in Rules 76-27 through to 76-29, which require the Secretary of State to disclose to the court all the material available to him, and which is relevant to the matter under consideration. The Secretary of State must also disclose all such material to the other party, except where the court permits him to withhold material on the ground that disclosure will be contrary to the public interest.
	If the Secretary of State withholds material from the other party without the permission of the court, the court may prevent the Secretary of State relying on such material himself, or it may withdraw the matter from its consideration.
	These rules reflect the requirements of Paragraph 4(3) of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was inserted by an amendment to the Bill to meet concerns about the need to establish a procedure for disclosure of exculpatory material.
	I have outlined the substantive provisions of the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Rules laid before the House on 14 March be approved [15th Report from the Merits Committee] [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister is not facing the person that she would have expected to face; but I will do my best on behalf of my noble friend, who is unavoidably detained.
	We are strongly opposed to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the restrictions that it imposes on civil liberties, but we recognise that, as long as the Act is in force, specific rules of court are needed to regulate the control order scheme. Nevertheless, we are concerned about many of the specifics.
	First, I observe that the new rules disapply several parts of the Civil Procedure Rules unnecessarily. Rule 76.2 provides that the overriding objective of the CPR must be read in a way that is compatible with the court's duty to,
	"ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest".
	The overriding objective requires that the court deal with cases justly. All the other rules in Part 1 apply the overriding objective,
	"so far as is practicable".
	That derogation appears unnecessary. No other law, as far as I am aware, derogates from this rule and, no doubt, many documents are withheld from other cases in the interests of national security.
	Another example of the non-application of the CPR is Rule 76.26, which provides that Parts 31, 32 and 33, concerning evidence, do not apply to under the new part. Those rules plainly do not apply to closed material. However, should Parts 31, 32 and 33 not apply to other material? If not, should not those rules be replaced with alternatives?
	Both closed material and open material may be withheld from a controlled person. In short, the treatment of evidence in proceedings needs to be regulated in some way. The absence of any rules will place the controlled person at an unnecessary further disadvantage in control order proceedings. The simple question is why the Government believe that those parts should be removed.
	I also hope that the Minister will explain why there is a total exclusion of Rule 5.4 from control order proceedings. If anonymity has not been requested under Rule 76.19, cannot court papers and open material be seen by the public? Since the Freedom of Information Act, there has been a general presumption of public access, unless the information falls under an exemption. Finally, why does Part 23, providing general rules about applications for court orders, apply to non-derogating control orders but not to derogating control orders?
	Which supporting documents can be produced for applications or appeals made to the courts under the new Part 76? The Secretary of State must give reasons when applying for control orders, but the nature of those reasons varies depending on the type of application.
	Rule 76.6 also contains inconsistencies relating to which documents need be served on the other party. Where the Secretary of State makes or opposes an application to the court on notice, he need serve only open material on the controlled person. By contrast, the controlled person, when making an application to the court, must serve on the Secretary of State a statement of reasons; any written evidence on which he relies; any written submissions; and, where appropriate, a draft of the order sought. That seems to represent a substantial imbalance that places the controlled person at a major procedural disadvantage. The same inconsistency arises in relation to appeals.
	Closed material, of course, could never be served on the controlled person; but could not a statement of reasons and any written submissions and draft orders be served on him without a threat to public security? Could such items be viewed to remove those sections that might jeopardise any closed material, intelligence or sources?
	Rule 76.26(4) states that,
	"The court may receive evidence that would not, but for this rule, be admissible in a court of law".
	Does that rule to apply to both the Secretary of State and the controlled person's evidence? The reason that I ask is that the word "evidence" is otherwise used exclusively to refer to the controlled person's supporting documents, whereas the Secretary of State's evidence is referred to as "relevant", "open" or "closed" material—all defined terms under the rules and the Act.
	Finally, why have the Government chosen to exclude the use of skeleton arguments from the appeals procedure in Rule 76.12(3)? Skeleton arguments have reduced time and expense in court proceedings. I find that mystifying.
	Under Section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, a controlled person may appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to renew, modify or not revoke a non-derogating control order. The procedural rules for such appeals are found in Rules 76.11 to 76.16.
	The fourth and final key issue relates to special advocates. The special advocate sees all closed material; makes submissions; and cross-examines witnesses at control order hearings. The special advocate system is flawed. In their Explanatory Notes, the Government state that the procedure was,
	"approved by the European Court of Human Rights".
	However, in its recent report, the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee stated:
	"In fact, the European Court of Human Rights has not given a ringing endorsement to the use of Special Advocates at all, but has indicated that their use is a lesser evil than some other systems, but still potentially an impermissible one".
	The Committee also stated:
	"i. once they have had sight of the closed material they cannot take instructions (subject to narrow exceptions) from the persons they are representing or their ordinary legal representatives;
	ii. they lack the resources of an ordinary legal team for the purpose of conducting a full defence in secret (for instance, for inquiries or research); and,
	iii. they have no power to call witnesses".
	The report was very critical of the system and recommended that it,
	"should only be operated under the most exceptional circumstances".

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who has been forced into a somewhat unexpected position. She has performed very effectively.
	The order plainly follows inevitably from the Schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, enacted after that memorable cliff-hanging sitting on 10 to 11 March—which of us will ever forget that? The issues were fully debated during the passage of the Bill. It is obviously inappropriate to debate them again today, but I should like to mention some of the order's provisions—perhaps not in great detail.
	The order's most controversial purpose is to provide for the special advocate procedure, which is not new, but this is the first occasion on which it has been applied to the ordinary courts, as opposed to special tribunals. The special advocate procedure is very unsatisfactory. It has been considered by a report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons that was published just before the recess. It stated that the special advocate system should be operated only under the most exceptional circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree. One of the most objectionable features of the special advocate procedure is the ban on contact between the controlled person and the special advocate following the disclosure of closed material to the special advocate.
	At paragraph 86, the report recommended that the Government reconsider their ban on contact, stating:
	"It should not be impossible to construct safeguards to ensure national security in such circumstances".
	The report returned to that matter in paragraph 112. I shall read only paragraph 112(ii), which recommends that,
	"Steps are taken to make it easier for Special Advocates to communicate with appellants and their legal advisers after they have seen closed material on a basis which does not compromise national security. This is for two reasons: first, to ensure that the Special Advocate is in a position to establish whether the charges or evidence can be challenged by evidence not available to the appellant; and, second, so that the Special Advocate is able to form a coherent legal strategy with the appellant's legal team".
	The fact that the special advocate is not in a position to establish what evidence can be called to rebut the charges and the fact that the special advocate cannot form a coherent strategy cast grave doubt on the fairness of the proceedings. I very much hope that the Government—whatever colour they may be after 5 May—will be prepared to modify the special advocate procedure to meet these very trenchant criticisms.
	Symbolically, perhaps, it can be said that the most trenchant criticism of the rules is in the new rules themselves, because the Government thought it necessary to modify Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to make the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules subject to the new Rule 76(2), which provides that the court must ensure information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest.
	What is that overriding objective? The overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. So the Government are saying that the special advocate procedure under Part 76 is potentially incompatible with the court's duty to deal with cases justly. We cannot just sit back now that those rules are in force. We welcomed very much, during the debates on the Bill in March, the commitment of the Government to bring in a new Bill next year that would enable all those issues to be reconsidered.
	We will not, of course, challenge the rules today, but we will certainly come back to the whole question of the special advocate procedure if and when the new Bill is introduced. We think—I hope that the Government will acknowledge—that the special advocate procedure really needs to be reconsidered to make it less unfair to the controlled person.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for standing in. I had already agreed with her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that if there were issues of particular concern that I was unable to deal with immediately—the noble Baroness read out very beautifully some of those issues—I would write to him. He was very content with that. I shall try to deal with some of those issues, conscious of the desire of the House to pursue business, as well as addressing the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	The noble Baroness is right that we have disapplied certain parts of the CPR. New Part 76 is to be based on the general principle that other provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules should apply to proceedings brought under the Act as far as possible. In making those rules, the Schedule to the Act required us—as noble Lords will be aware from the long, exciting, interesting and sometimes amazing events earlier this month—to ensure that control orders are properly reviewed by the courts, which is very important, and to secure that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest. I recognise the issues that noble Lords have raised on that.
	In the light of that, we therefore thought that it was important to make some modifications to the application of the CPR, but we believe that they are limited to what we consider to be absolutely necessary in that context. So Rule 76(2) modifies the overriding objective set out in Part 1. As noble Lords will know, the overriding objective is to enable the courts to deal with, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, cases justly, including, among other things, ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, saving expense and dealing with the case in a way that is proportionate, expeditious and fair, allotting each case an appropriate share of the court's responsibilities. Equally, Rule 76(26)(1) disapplies Parts 31 to 33 from any proceedings to which Part 76 applies.
	Control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings will involve, undoubtedly, a large amount of intelligence material. The nature of that material means that the normal rules of evidence are not apposite. Some of the material will be in the form of witness statements; some will be first-hand or second-hand hearsay; and some will be derived from a variety of different sources, including media reporting.
	To take a brief example: the identification of an individual from a transcript of an intercept may be an issue, which may involve expert hearsay evidence from several witnesses covering several intercepts. In place of Parts 32 and 33 on evidence, Rule 76(26) makes special provision for evidence in control order proceedings. That rule, which is based on Rule 44 of the SIAC rules, ensures that a broad range of intelligence material may be admitted in evidence.
	In place of Part 31 on disclosure, Rules 76(27) and 76(29) make special provision for the filing and service of relevant material by the Secretary of State, which includes the procedure whereby the Secretary of State may apply to withhold closed material from that relevant party. The rules reflect the procedure for disclosure that is required by paragraph 4(3) of the schedule.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was concerned about the imbalance in documents required to be directed by the Secretary of State and the controlled person. Where the Secretary of State is required to serve open materials—for example, under Rule 76(6)—the general rules relating to the filing and service of all relevant material in Rules 76(27) and 76(29) will also apply.
	During the passage of the Bill, concern was expressed about a procedure that did not provide for disclosure by the Secretary of State of exculpatory material, which might, of course, be of assistance to another party in relation to a matter under consideration by the court. We responded to that by moving an amendment to the schedule to the Bill—paragraph 4(3)—to which I have already referred. It requires many things, including the requirement that the Secretary of State provides the court with all the material available to him which is relevant to the matter under consideration. We have sought to address that concern.
	I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the rules do not remove the requirement to provide skeleton arguments. Paragraphs 5(9) to 5(11) of the practice direction that accompanies Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules will apply to those proceedings, which I hope addresses the point made by the noble Baroness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, particularly focused his remarks on the CASC report. The committee has played a really important role. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is unable to be with us today: I think that he is in Budapest. I am sure that he would have taken part in these discussions. The committee has played a really important part in securing important changes to the special advocate system.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we plan to introduce further legislative matters to counter terrorism. The committee's recommendation will be given due consideration in developing those new proposals. That is a commitment that I can make. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has been appointed—I am delighted to say—to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which will include the judicial system that is currently in place.
	As I said in my opening remarks, the rules of court are already in force and control order proceedings have been brought in the High Court in line with the rules that we have debated. It is early days, but I can tell noble Lords that there have been no issues arising on shortcomings in these rules of court and the manner in which proceedings can be pursued in the High Court.
	With the commitment that I have already made to address the substantive points that I was unable to address in my response to both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and, through her, to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I commend the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [HL]

A message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to the Education Bill with amendments to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	1 After Clause 69 , insert the following new Clause—

"Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school

(1) Section 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (proposals for discontinuance of community, foundation, voluntary or maintained nursery school) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (4) substitute—
	"(4A) The matters to which the relevant body shall have regard in formulating any proposals under this section in relation to a rural primary school include—
	(a) the likely effect of the discontinuance of the school on the local community,
	(b) the availability, and likely cost to the local education authority, of transport to other schools,
	(c) any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from the discontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase, and
	(d) any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school;
	and in considering these matters the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(4B) Before publishing any proposals under this section which relate to a rural primary school, the relevant body shall consult—
	(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at the school,
	(b) where the relevant body are the governing body of the school, the local education authority,
	(c) in a case where the local education authority are a county council in England, any district council for the area in which the school is situated,
	(d) any parish council or community council for the area in which the school is situated, and
	(e) such other persons as appear to the relevant body to be appropriate.
	(4C) Before publishing any other proposals under this section the relevant body shall consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate.
	(4D) In discharging their duty under subsection (4B) or (4C) the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State."
	(3) After subsection (9) insert—
	"(9A) In this section "rural primary school" means a primary school designated as such for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.""
	2 Regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State. , insert the following new Clause—

"Proposals relating to maintained special school

In section 31 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (proposals in respect of community or foundation special school), for subsection (4) substitute—
	"(4A) Before publishing any proposals under this section to make any prescribed alteration to a school, or to discontinue a school, the relevant body shall consult—
	(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at the school,
	(b) any local education authority which maintain a statement under section 324 of the Education Act 1996 (statement of special educational needs) in respect of a registered pupil at the school, and
	(c) such other persons as appear to the relevant body to be appropriate.
	(4B) Before publishing any proposals under this section to establish a new school, the relevant body shall consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate.
	(4C) In discharging their duty under subsection (4A) or (4B) the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.""
	3 Clause 70, Leave out Clause 70
	4 Clause 72, Leave out Clause 72
	5 Clause 119, page 65, line 4, at end insert—
	"section (Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school) (proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school);
	section (Proposals relating to maintained special school) (proposals relating to maintained special school);"
	6 Clause 126, page 67, line 35, after "5" insert ", 22A"
	7 Page 67, line 44, leave out "22 to 24" and insert "22, 23, 24"
	8 Page 68, line 3, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert—
	"(a) for sections (Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school) and (Proposals relating to maintained special school), and paragraph 8A of Schedule 12 (and section 71 so far as relating to that paragraph)—
	(i) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
	(ii) in relation to Wales, the Assembly, and
	(b) for the other provisions of the Part, the Secretary of State."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8. In speaking to these amendments, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 10 to 13. We had an excellent process of scrutiny on this Bill. The amendments coming to us from the Commons are either technical amendments that are consequential on other previous amendments or, more substantially, are amendments made to the Bill by the Commons which will put into good law the amendments that this House insisted on with regard to rural primary schools and to special schools.
	As I indicated to the Opposition Front Benches and the House at the conclusion of our proceedings on the Bill when it was in this House, the Government intended to accept those amendments, but, of course, wished to put them into good law, which is what these amendments do. I will detain the House no further. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words. Having been involved in several pieces of legislation in this House, I am more satisfied with this Bill than with anything else. I thank all those involved in the scrutiny put into the legislation. It is a real example of how legislation can be improved by this House, given its wealth of expertise and professional input. I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Perry and the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Dearing, who made such valuable contributions to our debates.
	After the work that has been put into the Bill, we now have a very good piece of legislation. I strongly supported the speeding up of the Ofsted regime. We have improved it by making certain that the work of the inspectors will be transparent, that schools will have the chance to appeal and that parents and governors would be fully involved. We also managed to secure a stronger response on discipline in schools, an area about which we are all concerned both in terms of Ofsted reports and in the training of teachers.
	The amendments before us deal with two areas that I know from my own experience are of deep concern to the public and all those involved in education: rural schools, where attitudes have changed over the past 20 years; and special educational needs provision. Both issues have risen up the agenda over the past few months because people are rightly concerned about rural schools and the provision of special education and I am pleased that the Government have felt able to accept the two amendments passed in this House.
	I acknowledge that the wording of our amendments might sometimes not use the jargon appropriate for legislation and I thank the Government for bringing back to the House amendments which have improved it to accommodate the two issues we insisted on. With that, I repeat my strong support for all the amendments before us today. We have concluded a successful piece of legislation for the benefit of education in this country.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, Members on these Benches also thank the Minister for the way in which he has handled this Bill. He listened to the concerns expressed by other Benches and I, too, think that we have greatly improved the Bill, although from our point of view it is still not perfect. I hope that the Minister will forgive a few of my later words on that. However, I do not wish to be ungracious because he has handled this Bill in an exemplary way, and we thank him for that.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness for a moment. I forgot completely to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her engagement this week to a fellow Member of the House. We should offer her our congratulations.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I hope that the House will spare my blushes and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for his good wishes.
	I was about to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Sutherland, for the way in which they helped us to improve the parts of the Bill that refer to inspections. We welcome those improvements, particularly to Clause 2(1)(g) and (h) concerned with the inspection of school discipline and behaviour and rigorous internal self-assessment procedures. We were strongly in favour of both of those provisions.
	We also thank the Government for coming back with the correct wording for the consultation on the closure of rural primary schools and special schools, which is a great improvement. However, we were sorry that we did not win the vote on parents' meetings. Our amendment would have required head teachers to justify any decision not to hold a parents' meeting and would have allowed 20 parents to get together and insist that one is held. That was a fairly sensible compromise, but in the end the House did not agree with us. We shall watch with interest what happens with parents' meetings, as we will the school profiles being introduced by the Government. We hope that the format being brought in will still allow schools to express their own particular character, ethos and personality to parents because it is the only document that all parents receive without having to ask for it.
	We think that the Government really have not thought through some of the later parts of the Bill. There is a tension between the fact that on the one hand the Government are nationalising funding of schools in Part 4, while on the other hand in Clause 66 in Part 2, they are to privatise provision to a much greater extent. We remain concerned about the lack of accountability of the proposed 200 academies to elected local representatives, and the fact that so much control over our secondary education provision is being given to people who are not accountable. That is a pernicious provision. We believe that the Government may have to reinvent local authorities, having contributed so much to their destruction through certain elements in the Bill.
	However, having said that, and particularly in the light of the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I do not wish to be ungracious. I welcome much in the Bill and I agree that we have improved it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	9 Clause 128, page 68, line 33, leave out subsection (3)

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9, which is the privilege amendment.
	This may be the last opportunity I have to congratulate in public the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I heard the news about five minutes ago. I am delighted for her and I am sure that the House wishes her much happiness.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	Schedule 9, Page 100, line 26, at end insert—

"Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14)

22A In section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (tribunal to hear certain appeals) omit subsection (2)(ca)."
	11 Schedule 12, page 118, line 23, at end insert—
	"8A In section 138 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (orders and regulations), in subsection (4), after "20(7)," insert "29(9A),"."
	12 Schedule 19, page 150, line 15, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Protection of Children Act1999 (c. 14) Section 9(2)(ca)." 
		
	
	13 Page 150, line 25, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 14, paragraphs 1 and 5 to 7."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13. I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendments Nos. 1 to 8.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until we are ready to consider the Commons amendments to the Gambling Bill. This is not likely to be later than five o'clock, and it may be sooner. Notice will be posted on the Annunciator.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 3.18 to 4.15 p.m.]

Gambling Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons reasons were considered forthwith and the Lords amendments were not insisted on.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 19, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

3 Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Act "casino premises" means premises in respect of which a casino premises licence has been granted under section 148(1)(a)."
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	3A Because the amendment no longer reflects other amendments made by the Lords.
	4 Page 4, line 6, after "of" insert "casino"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	4A Because the amendment no longer reflects other amendments made by the Lords.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 3A and 4A.
	Our percentage record is much better than appears. The Commons agreed to 193 out of 195 of the Lords amendments. They disagree to two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which were connected to the debate in Committee about the identification of casino customers. As we agreed in debate last night, the amendments are no longer necessary because they have been replaced by a further Lords amendment which has been accepted. I ask that the House do not insist on these amendments.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 3A and 4A.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn to await prorogation, I should say that it is most likely to be at five o'clock. We cannot be absolutely precise but any changes and further information will be given on the Annunciator. In the mean time, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 4.17 to 5 p.m.]

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Drugs Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Crossrail Bill

A message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
	That further proceedings on the Crossrail Bill shall be suspended until the next session of Parliament;
	That if a Bill is presented in the next session in the same terms as the Crossrail Bill when it was presented in this session—
	(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first time; and
	(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next session;
	That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

International Organisations Bill [HL]

Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the privilege amendment was considered and agreed to.

Royal Commission

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.
	Then, the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos), the Lord Strathclyde, the Lord McNally and the Lord Molyneaux of Killead) being present and the Commons being at the Bar, the Lord Chancellor said: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit personally to be present here at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty's name to prorogue this present Parliament. Which Commission you will now hear read.
	A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given Her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.

Royal Assent

The following Acts received the Royal Assent:
	Finance Act,
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act,
	Mental Capacity Act,
	Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act,
	Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act,
	Inquiries Act,
	Disability Discrimination Act,
	Railways Act,
	Serious Organised Crime and Police Act,
	Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act,
	Drugs Act,
	Education Act,
	Gambling Act,
	International Organisations Act.

Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech

Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:

The Queen: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government have pursued economic policies which have brought about sustained growth and prosperity.
	My Government have continued to take action to secure high levels of employment as it reforms the welfare state.
	An Act has been passed that allows for the extension of the circumstances in which a family can be eligible for child benefit for 16 to 19 year-olds who are in learning.
	Legislation has been enacted to support the continuing fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom.
	An Act has been passed to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and to establish a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom and a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales.
	An Act has been passed as an interim measure to make the electoral register in Northern Ireland both accurate and comprehensive until more permanent measures can be put in place.
	Legislation has been passed to provide a statutory framework for dealing with the financial, health and welfare decisions of those people who might lack capacity through mental illness or disability.
	My Government have continued to work towards the reduction of bureaucracy and the costs of government, and towards promoting efficiency. An Act has been passed to integrate the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
	An Act has been passed to establish the Serious Organised Crime Agency and to strengthen the fight against crime.
	An Act has been passed to improve local environmental quality by tackling the anti-social behaviour that blights our communities.
	Legislation has been enacted to streamline the school inspection regime and to bring in three-year budgets for schools, which will help raise standards for every child in every school.
	An Act has been passed to unify and simplify the ombudsman service in Wales.
	An Act has been passed to tackle the problem of drug abuse and the crime that flows from it.
	Legislation has been enacted to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil international commitments to confer privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies.
	Measures to reform the law on mental health have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny.
	Draft legislation has been published to safeguard the welfare of children in circumstances of parental separation and inter-country adoption from countries where there are concerns about child welfare.
	A draft Bill has been published to introduce a new offence of corporate manslaughter.
	Draft legislation has been published to ensure the better management and protection of our natural environment and rural communities.
	A Bill has been introduced to authorise the construction of Crossrail.
	Other important measures have been enacted.
	Members of the House of Commons,
	I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visit of his Excellency the President of the Republic of Korea and the State Visit of his Excellency the President of Italy.
	My Government currently hold the G8 presidency, and are placing high priority on the important issues of Africa and climate change.
	My Government have continued to work with partners around the world to prevent terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the problems of drug smuggling and international crime.
	My Government have worked to strengthen the commitment on both sides of the Atlantic to the transatlantic relationship and to the continued effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and have worked with the international community to strengthen the United Nations.
	My Government continue to support the Government of Iraq to provide security and stability following the elections held in January.
	My Government have continued to support efforts to build peace in the Middle East, to promote democratic reform and reduce conflict and extremism.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
	After which the Lord Chancellor said:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read We do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 14th day of April, to be then there holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Thursday, the 14th day of April.
	Parliament was prorogued at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.